[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12849-12868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to Calendar No. 63, H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations 
Act, and that once the bill is reported, Senator Inouye be recognized 
to call up the substitute amendment which is at the desk and is the 
text of the Senate committee-reported bill, S. 1054; that the 
substitute amendment be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, 
be considered as original text for purpose of further amendments; and 
that no points of order be waived by virtue of this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Before Senator Inouye is recognized, let me say to the 
Senate, this is one of the most crucial pieces of legislation we will 
deal with this entire Congress. It involves funding of the troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We wish to make sure everyone who has any concern 
about any provision of this bill has the opportunity to try to change 
it any way they want. We want to get this done as quickly as possible. 
We want to make sure everyone has the opportunity to do what they 
believe is appropriate. Finally, what I wish to say is, we are very 
fortunate, as a Senate and a country, to have the two managers of this 
bill. I have stated many times my affection and admiration for Senator 
Inouye. He is a person whom the history books have already written 
about. Not only is he a heroic person in the fields of war but also in 
the fields of legislation. His colleague, Senator Cochran, is a person 
who has wide respect on both sides of the aisle. He is someone I have 
traveled parts of the world with. I have been working with him for a 
quarter of a century. He has been here longer than I have, but that 
doesn't take away from the fact that I recognize what a good Senator he 
is and how fortunate are the people in Mississippi to have him working 
on this legislation and all other matters. He is someone I can go to 
and there is no flimflam with Cochran. He tells you: I can't help you, 
here is what I want you to do. I think we will be well served during 
this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my good friend the majority 
leader, I understand he has laid down an amendment to be offered by the

[[Page 12850]]

chairman of the Appropriations Committee, our good friend from Hawaii, 
and Senator Inhofe related to Guantanamo. I am pleased the majority has 
recognized that the President's policy of putting an arbitrary deadline 
on the closing of Guantanamo is a mistake. A first step toward moving 
us in the direction of getting a new policy is to prevent funding in 
this bill or any other bill from being used for the purpose of closing 
Guantanamo. What we need to remember is that Guantanamo is a $200 
million state-of-the-art facility. It has appropriate courtrooms for 
the military commissions we established a couple years ago at the 
direction of the Supreme Court. No one has ever escaped from 
Guantanamo.
  We need to think, once again, about the rightness of the policy of 
closing this facility. It presents an immediate dilemma. Among the 250 
or so people who are left there now are some of the most hardened 
terrorists in the world, people who planned the 9/11 attacks on this 
country. We know how the Senate feels about bringing them to the United 
States. We had that vote 2 years ago. It was 94 to 3 against bringing 
these terrorists to the United States. What we need is to rethink the 
policy of closing this facility. If our rationale for closing it is to 
be more popular with the Europeans, I must say we don't represent the 
Europeans. We represent the people of the United States. We have a 
pretty clear sense of how the people in this country feel about 
bringing these terrorists to the United States.
  I congratulate our good friends in the majority. They are heading in 
the right direction. We know the President on national security issues 
has shown some flexibility in the past. For example, he changed his 
position on releasing photographs of things that occurred at Abu 
Ghraib. He changed his position on the using of military commissions 
and has now rethought that and opened the possibility that maybe 
military commissions established by the previous administration and 
this Congress are a good way to try these terrorists. He rethought his 
position on Iraq and moved away from an arbitrary timeline for 
withdrawal. We know he has now ordered a surge in Afghanistan led by 
the same people who orchestrated and led the surge in Iraq which was so 
successful. So the President has demonstrated his ability to rethink 
these national security issues.
  I am confident and hopeful he will now, getting this clear message 
from both the House and the Senate on the appropriations bill, begin to 
rethink the appropriateness of an arbitrary timeline for the closing of 
Guantanamo.
  I fully intend to support this amendment. I hope all Members of the 
Senate will. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran, who is here, 
for their leadership on this bill. I particularly thank Senator Inhofe, 
who has been one of our leaders on this subject for a long time and 
reminded everyone today that he was down at Guantanamo not too long 
after 9/11 and has been there a number of times. I have been there 
myself. We all know it is a state-of-the-art facility in which the 
detainees are appropriately and humanely treated.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have never known John McCain or certainly 
President Bush to base their foreign policy on how the Europeans felt. 
Certainly, President Obama also bases his not strictly on how the 
Europeans feel about anything he does. I agree with President Bush and 
John McCain that Guantanamo should be closed. And we Democrats believe 
that President Obama is following the direction of others who have laid 
out the fact that it should be closed.
  The decision to close Guantanamo was the right one. Guantanamo makes 
us less safe. However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal 
with this. Both Democrats and Republicans agree. The Democrats, under 
no circumstances, will move forward without a comprehensive, 
responsible plan from the President. I believe that is bipartisan in 
nature. I think the Republicans agree with that. And we will never 
allow terrorists to be released into the United States. That is what 
this is all about.
  I think this is the best way to approach this. I think the President 
will come up with a plan. Once that plan is given to us, then we will 
have the opportunity to debate his plan. Now is not the time to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will add that both President Bush and 
Senator McCain indicated they would like to close Guantanamo but never 
suggested a specific time for doing it. The reason for that is they 
were confronted with the realities of this decision. If there were a 
specific timeline, it was difficult to figure out what to do with the 
detainees.
  In addition to that, this administration--at least the Attorney 
General--has indicated there is a possibility they are going to allow 
some of the Chinese terrorists, the Uighars, to be released in the 
United States not in a prison. In other words, presumably they would be 
walking around in our country. So this issue is not totally behind us.
  Again, I congratulate our friends on the other side for their 
movement on this issue. All these problems have not yet been solved. We 
all want to protect the homeland from future attacks. We know 
incarceration at Guantanamo has worked. No one has ever escaped from 
Guantanamo.
  We know what happened when you had a terrorist trial in Alexandria, 
VA. Ask the mayor of Alexandria. The Moussaoui trial--it made their 
community a target for attacks. When they moved Moussaoui to and from 
the courtroom, they had to shut down large sections of the community.
  It raises all kinds of problems if you bring a terrorist to U.S. 
soil, about whether they are going to be granted, in effect, more 
rights by having the Bill of Rights apply to them in a Federal court 
system than a U.S. soldier tried in a military court. There are lots of 
very complicated issues, which led both Senator McCain, who is fully 
able to speak for himself on this issue, and President Bush to never 
put a specific timetable for closure. That is the difference between 
their position and the position of the President.
  Having said that, the President has demonstrated, as I said earlier, 
a lot of flexibility on these national security issues. I am hopeful he 
will continue to work his way in the direction of a policy that will 
keep America safe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2346, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank both leaders of the Senate 
for their gracious remarks.
  Today, the Senate will begin to consider the request for supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 2009. As we all know, the President has 
requested $84.9 billion in new budget authority, first, to cover the 
costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it includes 
funds for the supporting costs to those operations, and to prepare for 
natural disasters, including wildfires and the swine flu. In addition, 
last Tuesday, the administration requested proposals to increase the 
borrowing power of the International Monetary Fund. This proposal would 
cost $5 billion under the scoring of the Congressional Budget Office.
  After reviewing the President's request, the proposals made by the 
committee and included in the recommendation before you total $91.3 
billion, $1.3 billion above the President's estimate. This amount is 
$5.4 billion below the measure just passed by the House. I would point 
out that the House did not consider the $5 billion request for the IMF 
by the administration.
  The President requested funding in four basic areas: national 
defense, international affairs, protection against swine flu, and 
funding in response to natural disasters, all of which I will briefly 
discuss.

[[Page 12851]]

  The President's request included $73.7 billion for items under the 
jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee. The committee has provided 
$73 billion for this purpose. The remaining $700 million was requested 
for programs that more appropriately are funded by other subcommittees, 
such as Military Construction; Commerce, Justice, State; and Homeland 
Security. So in this mark, we recommend transferring these funds to the 
relevant subcommittees.
  I would note there are several differences between the specific items 
requested and the amounts recommended by the committee. For example, 
the committee recommended $1.9 billion to cover the costs of higher 
military personnel retention and other necessary personnel bills.
  We provide an additional $1.55 billion for the purchase of the all-
terrain MRAP vehicle and $500 million for equipment for our National 
Guard and Reserve forces. The committee also addressed the readiness 
needs of the Navy and provides for an increase in the enhancement of 
our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
  For the Department of State and other international affairs funding, 
including the IMF, the committee recommends $11.9 billion, nearly the 
same as the amount requested. The committee recommendation is similar 
to that requested, but I would note that additional funding has been 
allocated for Jordan and for the Global AIDS Program within the overall 
total.
  For military construction, the committee is recommending $2.3 
billion, about the same as that sought by the administration.
  The committee has recommended $1.5 billion, as requested, for the 
swine flu, and has worked with the administration to identify the best 
allocation of these resources among the relevant Federal agencies.
  Funding of $250 million is recommended for fighting wildfires, and 
$700 million is provided for international food assistance under PL-
480.
  The committee has responded to damage caused by natural disasters by 
adding nearly $900 million to the amount requested for damage from 
flooding in the Midwest and in response to Hurricane Katrina.
  Each subcommittee was tasked with reviewing the President's request 
in their jurisdiction and recommending funding both for items in the 
request and other items necessary to meet legitimate emergency needs.
  The vice chairman, Senator Cochran, and I also offered each 
subcommittee the opportunity to recommend earmarks or other 
nonemergency increases so long as the costs were offset within existing 
funding.
  As the Senate considers this bill, I would point out that under the 
budget resolution, any item which seeks to add funding to the bill will 
be subject to a Budget Act point of order unless it is offset.
  This is an important bill which responds to the requirements of our 
men and women in uniform and to members of our population who have been 
ravaged by natural disasters. It also seeks to protect our people and 
our country with funding to deter wildfires and the swine flu, in 
addition to terrorists.
  This is a good bill. It is necessary to deal with a myriad of 
problems. We should act expeditiously to pass it, get it to conference, 
and on to the President for his signature. Therefore, I join my leaders 
in urging my colleagues to help us attain quick passage of this very 
important measure.
  Mr. President, I yield to the vice chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in presenting to the Senate 
the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill. This bill 
includes funding to combat violent extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and supports other emergency requirements both at home and abroad.
  This bill includes funding for the men and women in the Armed Forces 
and our diplomatic corps, and gives them the resources necessary to 
carry out the missions assigned to them by our Government.
  I commend the distinguished chairman for moving this bill in a timely 
manner to ensure that our service men and women have the resources they 
need while still allowing time for the Senate to carefully consider the 
bill.
  I hope this year we can complete action on the supplemental in time 
to avoid putting the Secretary of Defense in a position where he is 
compelled to postpone acquisitions or transfer funding between 
accounts, and take other inefficient steps to maintain the flow of 
resources to our troops in the field.
  This bill contains several important initiatives that will strengthen 
our military's ability to prosecute its mission and improve the overall 
readiness of our forces. Several of these priorities were identified by 
the Department of Defense but were not included in the President's 
request. We were able to fund these additional needs while staying 
within the overall spending level requested by the President for 
Defense programs.
  The bill contains more than $18 billion for military pay and 
benefits, including $1.9 billion to cover shortfalls not requested by 
the administration. The bill also includes funding for continued 
operations, equipment repair and replacement, and enhanced support to 
wounded warriors and military families.
  The bill contains $4.2 billion for mine resistant ambush protected 
vehicles. This recommendation is $1.5 billion more than the 
administration's request and will help speed the delivery of an ``All 
Terrain'' version of the vehicle to Afghanistan where harsh terrain 
challenges the mobility of our forces.
  The committee also recommends $332 million above the President's 
request to fund urgent requirements identified by the Secretary of 
Defense's Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force. 
These funds will be used to procure additional sensors, platforms, and 
communication systems that are critical for finding and neutralizing 
al-Qaida and insurgent forces.
  To maintain the readiness of our forces, the bill includes an 
additional $246 million above the President's request for the Navy's P-
3 surveillance aircraft. These planes are not only used for maritime 
patrol, but also to support Army and Marine ground forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The funds will allow the Navy to procure wing kits needed 
to address structural fatigue issues that have led to the grounding of 
many of these aircraft.
  The committee also recommends $190 million above the President's 
request for ship depot maintenance to address damage done to three Navy 
vessels during recent mishaps. These repairs are truly unforeseen 
emergencies, and the funds in this bill will help ensure these ships 
return to the operational fleet as soon as possible.
  Although the President's request did not include funding in the 
National Guard and Reserve equipment account, the committee recommends 
$500 million. Currently there are over 140,000 National Guard and 
Reserve personnel activated. This funding will help ensure those 
personnel have the resources necessary to perform their duties. These 
funds will be used to procure equipment for National Guard and Reserve 
units to be used to support combat missions and taskings from State 
Governors.
  The Defense title also contains $400 million for the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund. This new initiative proposed by the 
President is intended to bolster efforts to eliminate terrorist safe 
havens in the rugged border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I 
understand the legitimate concern raised by Senators who believe that 
such a program should be administered by the Department of State, but I 
believe the needs of the commanders on the ground warrant short-term 
funding for the Defense Department until this program can be 
effectively transferred to the State Department.
  While this supplemental is predominantly focused on American efforts 
abroad, I am pleased that the bill also responds to emergencies here at 
home. The bill includes several provisions to aid in my State's ongoing 
recovery from Hurricane Katrina, including funding to restore the 
federally owned

[[Page 12852]]

barrier islands that serve as the first line of protection for the 
Mississippi coastline. These islands were significantly diminished by 
Katrina, and according to a Corps of Engineers' study their restoration 
will go a long way toward mitigating future damage.
  I greatly appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the chairman 
worked with me and other members on our side in crafting this bill. He 
and his staff have been very open to requests, even while producing a 
bill that adds very little to the top-line amount requested by the 
President.
  In this bill, Chairman Inouye made a sincere effort to respond to 
security concerns at Guantanamo Bay without denying outright the 
resources requested by the President to analyze and implement closure 
of the facility. I understand, however, that the funding and language 
relating to Guantanamo remain controversial. I anticipate these matters 
will be thoroughly discussed and that several Senators are likely to 
propose amendments.
  Senators may also have amendments relating to the International 
Monetary Fund. The bill reported by the committee includes language 
sought by the President to expand the United States commitment to the 
IMF. This request was submitted only a week ago, and there was very 
little time prior to the committee markup in which to consult with the 
relevant authorizing committees and other experts. I am not aware that 
there have been Senate hearings on this request. I look forward to 
further discussion of this important subject, but wish to express my 
concern that the manner in which this request has been presented could 
endanger the timely enactment of this supplemental. I hope that is not 
the case.
  I would like once again to thank the Senator from Hawaii for the 
manner in which he has put this bill together. I look forward to 
working with him to get the bill to the President in a timely fashion, 
and to beginning work in earnest on the regular fiscal year 2010 
appropriations bills. We have a busy summer ahead of us.
  I urge my colleagues on the Republican side who may have amendments 
to the supplemental to contact us so that we can make efficient use of 
the Senate's time.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma wants to make a 
comment. I will yield first, though, to the distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 1131

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Cochran and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 1131.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, this amendment is 
adopted and is considered as original text, with no points of order 
being waived.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield.


                           Amendment No. 1133

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am a little confused as to where we are. 
I have an amendment I do want filed. It is amendment No. 1132 at the 
desk right now. I say to the senior Senator from Hawaii that it is 
essentially the same thing as the wording of an amendment he will be 
bringing up.
  My request of the Senator--and I cleared this with the Senator from 
Mississippi--is that I be the first cosponsor on his amendment so that 
it would be the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. No question about that. Is it the pending amendment at 
this moment, the Inouye-Inhofe amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I can clarify this. I had sent my 
amendment to the desk, which we don't plan to take up, but I wanted it 
filed because we have a number of cosponsors who, I am sure, will want 
to join me in cosponsoring the Inouye amendment, since it is the same 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1133

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself and Mr. 
     Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 1133.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate 
  detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United 
                                States)

       Strike section 202 and insert the following:
       Sec. 202. (a)(1) None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act or any prior Act may be 
     used to transfer, release, or incarcerate any individual who 
     was detained as of May 19, 2009, at Naval Station, Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States.
       (2) In this subsection, the term ``United States'' means 
     the several States and the District of Columbia.
       (b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     title II for the Department of Justice for general 
     administration under the heading ``salaries and expenses'' is 
     hereby reduced by $30,000,000.
       (c) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     title III under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'' under paragraph (3) is hereby reduced by 
     $50,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been discussed rather 
fully by our two leaders.
  I now yield to Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  First of all, I heard the dialogue going back and forth on the 
amendment and the positions taken several times in statements made, and 
there are several people in this Chamber who want to close Guantanamo 
Bay.
  Let me make it very clear: I have never had any intentions of wanting 
to close it. I keep asking: What would be the reason someone would want 
to close an asset that we have that can't be replaced anywhere else? My 
feeling was since there was no answer to that, and since this is one of 
the few good deals, I say to both the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee: Have you ever had a 
better deal than this?
  It costs us $4,000 a month, the same price it cost us back in 1903, 
and it is a great $200 million facility. It has facilities to try these 
cases. They have the expeditionary legal complex there, which they 
don't have anyplace else. So if you close that down, you couldn't have 
the tribunals. Somehow they might end up being--I am talking about the 
terrorists--in our court system, in which case the rules of evidence 
are different.
  So for any number of reasons, and because everyone who goes down 
there--and I am talking about even Al-Jazeera the media goes down and 
comes back and shakes their heads and wonders why we would want to 
close it.
  So I want to go on record that I want to go further than just not 
funding Guantanamo, but also what we are going to be doing with some 
245 detainees. Hopefully, we can end this discussion about closing an 
asset that has served us very well for a number of years.
  So I wholeheartedly support the Inouye amendment, which is the same 
language I had in my amendment. I think that will pretty much 
accomplish what I wish to accomplish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me do this, if it is all right with 
the Senator from Hawaii. There are apparently

[[Page 12853]]

several people wanting to come down and speak on this bill, and I think 
Senator Durbin is going to be coming down. So while we are waiting, 
instead of sitting in a quorum call, let me mention that on my bill we 
had Senators Barrasso, Brownback, DeMint, Johanns, Roberts, Thune, 
Vitter, Sessions, Cornyn, Coburn, Hutchison, and Bennett, I believe, 
who all wanted to be or were cosponsors of my amendment.
  Since this is the same amendment, they also requested that--some of 
them wanted to come down and speak on behalf of this amendment. So if 
it is acceptable, we could wait until they get down here. Until they 
do, I wish to perhaps elaborate a little bit more about what is 
existing there right now in terms of any problems.
  A lot of times people are talking about maybe this is perceived by 
Europeans, or somebody else, to be an institution that sometimes is 
perhaps guilty of or accused of torturing detainees. Let me assure my 
colleagues that has never happened. There has never been a case of 
waterboarding.
  Most of the people who have come back--including Eric Holder, the 
Attorney General--came back with a report that the conditions and the 
circumstances under which these detainees exist are probably better 
than any of our Federal courts. Right now, there is one doctor for 
every two detainees, and they are giving them treatments they never had 
before. I have been down there numerous times only to find out that 
their treatment--the food they are eating and all of that--is actually 
better than they had at any other time during their lifetimes.
  So it is very difficult to look at a suggestion such as this. Seeing 
where this, to me, is the only place in the world where they actually 
are set up to handle these types of detainees, the suggestion was made 
that perhaps they wanted to--they were looking for 17 places in the 
continental United States to put these detainees. My view at that time 
was that we would end up having 17 targets for terrorism.
  One of those places they suggested was in my State of Oklahoma at 
Fort Sill. So I went down to Fort Sill to look at the detainee facility 
there. Sergeant Major Carter, who is in charge of it, said to me: 
Senator, why in the world would they close down Guantanamo?
  She said: I have been there on two different tours and there is no 
place that can handle detainees better. Besides that, there is a court 
system there where they can actually conduct tribunals, and there 
certainly is not in Fort Sill, OK.
  So in support of what we are doing with this amendment, some 27 
States now have expressed themselves that they don't want to have these 
detainees, any of them, in their States. We are talking about State 
legislatures. So that is over half of the State legislatures that are 
saying they wouldn't want to do that.
  So I think if we have an asset, if we have something that is working, 
we are in a position to keep detainees there. Some of them have to be 
there for a long period of time. The only choice would be to keep them 
there or to try them. If you try them and there is no way of disposing 
of them after the trial, they would have to go back.
  Right now, of the 245 detainees, there are 170 of them whose 
countries would not take them back. So you have to ask the question: 
What would we do with them?
  So the bottom line is this: It is a state-of-the-art prison. People 
are treated right. They have proper medical care. They have better food 
than most of them have ever had before. Besides that, some of these are 
the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-type of individuals whom we want to be sure 
don't get in the wrong court system where something could happen to 
them.
  So of the 240 detainees now, 27 are members of al-Qaida's leadership 
cadre, 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, 9 members of Taliban's 
leadership cadre, 92 foreign fighters--that is 38 percent of all of 
them--and 12 Taliban fighters and operatives. These people are tough 
guys. We are going to have to do something with them. So I do support 
the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, for this amendment he has 
offered. President Obama is formulating a plan in terms of the future 
of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and any appropriation at this 
moment would be premature. We should wait until the administration 
submits that plan and then try to work to implement that plan on a 
bipartisan basis.
  What I find incredible are the Members of the Senate who are coming 
to the floor and basically suggesting that the Guantanamo detention 
facility should stay open indefinitely; that there is no reason to 
close Guantanamo. I don't understand that thinking. Wasn't it President 
Bush of the Republican Party who called for closing Guantanamo? I 
thought he did. In fact, he did. I don't recall the Republican Senators 
standing up at that point and objecting when President Bush said that 
was his goal, to close Guantanamo.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, I will yield when I am finished.
  When President Obama was elected, he made it clear that we were going 
to have a clean break from some of the policies of the past and we were 
going to try to reestablish America's position in the world--a position 
of leadership and respect. I think that is a goal Americans heartily 
endorse, both political parties and Independents as well. The results 
of the November 4 election last year indicate that.
  When President Obama took office and said that the Guantanamo Bay 
detention facility would be phased out over a 1-year period of time, 
when he said we were going to do away with some of the interrogation 
techniques that had become so controversial, I felt it was a statement 
of principle and it was, practically speaking, important for our Nation 
to do.
  Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., a historian who died a couple of years ago, 
wrote histories of the United States beginning with the age of Jackson 
through F.D.R. and John F. Kennedy. Before he died, he said:

       No position taken has done more damage to the American 
     reputation in the world--ever.

  The tragic images that emerged from Abu Ghraib and the stories that 
came out afterwards, unfortunately, left an impression in the minds of 
people around the world that was mistaken--an impression that we were 
not a caring, principled people.
  I think President Obama's decision to move forward toward the closing 
of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was the right decision, but it 
wasn't just President Obama who came to that conclusion. Closing the 
Guantanamo Bay detention facility is an important national security 
priority for our Nation. Many national security and military leaders 
agree that closing Guantanamo will make us safer.
  Let me give a few examples: General Colin L. Powell, the former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State 
under President Bush, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey 
Graham, and former Republican Secretaries of State James Baker, Henry 
Kissinger, and Condoleezza Rice.
  The two most vocal supporters of keeping Guantanamo open are former 
Vice President Dick Cheney and talk show host Rush Limbaugh. With all 
due respect, when it comes to the national security of the United 
States of America, I will side with Colin Powell and John McCain over 
Vice President Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.
  According to experts, Guantanamo Bay, unfortunately, has become a 
recruiting tool for al-Qaida that is hurting America's security.
  Let me give one example. Retired Air Force MAJ Matthew Alexander led 
the interrogation team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the 
leader of the al-Qaida operation in Iraq, and this is what he said:


[[Page 12854]]

       I listened time and again to foreign fighters, and Sunni 
     Iraqis, state that the number one reason they decided to pick 
     up arms and join al-Qaida was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and 
     the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay. . . . 
     It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses 
     and casualties in that country have come at the hands of 
     foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of 
     detainee abuse.

  This is not a statement that comes out of some leftwing publication. 
It is a statement by a retired Air Force major, Matthew Alexander.
  I visited Guantanamo Bay in 2006. I left proud of the good job our 
soldiers and sailors were doing there. They are being asked to carry a 
heavy burden of the previous administration's policies.
  For many years, President Bush announced publicly that he wanted to 
close the Guantanamo detention facility, and there were no complaints 
from the Republican side of the aisle when President Bush made that 
suggestion. But President Bush didn't follow through.
  Now President Obama has taken on the challenge of solving this 
problem that he inherited from the Bush administration.
  I listened here as the previous speaker talked about the dangerous 
people at Guantanamo. There is no doubt that some of them are dangerous 
and have to be regarded as such, and releasing them would not be in the 
best interest of the security of the United States. But having said 
that, since Guantanamo was opened initially, the Bush administration 
released literally hundreds of detainees who were brought there, many 
of whom were later determined by the Bush administration not to be any 
threat or guilty of any wrongdoing. They were sent back to their 
countries of origin or to other countries that would receive them.
  One particular case I am aware of involves a young man who was from 
Gaza. He was turned over as a suspected terrorist and sent to 
Guantanamo. He was sent there at the age of 19. He languished in 
Guantanamo for 6 years, never being charged with any wrongdoing. Just 
last year, his attorney was given a communication by our Government 
that said: We have found no evidence of wrongdoing by this man who is 
your client, and he is free to leave as soon as we can determine which 
country will accept him. A year and 3 months have passed since then. He 
still sits in Guantanamo. He came there at the age of 19; he is now 26. 
Is that justice in America? Is that an outcome we applaud? Do we want 
to keep Guantanamo open so he can continue sitting there year after 
year? Of course not. We want to detain those who are dangerous and 
bring to trial those who can be charged with criminal wrongdoing. We 
want to release those who are innocent and of no harm to the United 
States.
  The President is taking the time to carefully plan for the closure of 
Guantanamo in a way that will protect our national security. One thing 
is eminently clear, and it is almost painful for me to have to say the 
words on the Senate floor, and if anybody suggests otherwise, I cannot 
imagine they would do it in good faith, but I will say them anyway. 
This President of the United States will never allow terrorists to be 
released in America.
  This President has set up three task forces to review interrogation 
and detention policies and conduct an individualized review of each 
detainee who is currently held at Guantanamo. These task forces are 
staffed by career professionals with extensive experience in 
intelligence and counterterrorism. They will make recommendations on 
how to close Guantanamo and what our interrogation and detention 
policies should be. We should give these national security experts the 
time to conduct a careful review and make their recommendations.
  The Obama administration's approach is in stark contrast to the 
previous administration, where policies were made by political 
appointees with no background in counterterrorism. They ignored 
concerns expressed by FBI agents and military personnel with years of 
experience in dealing with al-Qaida.
  When the President issued his Executive order, Republican Senators 
John McCain and Lindsey Graham said:

       We support President Obama's decision to close the prison 
     at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva 
     Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to 
     the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees.

  That is a responsible statement. I applaud my Republican colleagues 
for stepping up and acknowledging that this President is trying to do 
the right thing. It doesn't benefit the debate for people to come here 
and create a specter of fear, that somehow this President--or any 
President--would be party to releasing dangerous people into the United 
States.
  Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham said:

       I do believe we need to close Guantanamo Bay. I do believe 
     we can handle 100 or 250 prisoners and protect our national 
     security interests, because we had 450,000 German and 
     Japanese prisoners in the United States. So this idea that 
     they cannot be housed somewhere safely, I disagree.

  But some Republicans have decided to turn Guantanamo into a political 
issue on the floor. Some have even gone so far as to claim the 
President wants to release terrorists into the United States. This is 
an absurd, offensive, and baseless claim.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are criticizing the 
President, but the sad reality is that they have no plan to deal with 
the Guantanamo problem.
  Richard Clarke, President George W. Bush's first counterterrorism 
chief, said the following last week:

       Recent Republican attacks on Guantanamo are more desperate 
     attempts from a demoralized party to politicize national 
     security and the safety of the American people.

  Let me address one specific claim--that transferring Guantanamo 
detainees to U.S. prisons will put Americans at risk.
  Last week, Philip Zelikow, who was the Executive Director of the 9/11 
Commission and counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 
testified before the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Zelikow told me that it 
would be safe to transfer Guantanamo detainees to U.S. facilities and 
that we are already holding some of the world's most dangerous 
terrorists in the United States.
  Here are a few examples of those currently being held in American 
prisons: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center 
bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; Richard Reid, the so-
called shoe bomber; and numerous al-Qaida terrorists responsible for 
bombing the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
  If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can also safely 
hold Guantanamo detainees. I don't know if this will be part of the 
President's recommendation or plan. We are still waiting for that.
  I should make it clear in this debate that no prisoner has ever 
escaped from a U.S. Federal super-maximum security facility.
  President Obama inherited this Guantanamo problem from the previous 
administration. Solving it will require leadership and difficult 
choices, and it will take some time.
  I think the decision by Senator Inouye to remove this money from the 
supplemental is the right decision. The supplemental covers the next 4 
months. During that period of time, the President will come out with 
his plan, and we can work forward from there.
  The President is showing that he is willing to lead and make hard 
decisions. I urge my Republican colleagues to pay close attention to 
their colleagues, Senators McCain and Graham, who I think have been 
reasonable in discussing this issue. We should not play politics with 
national security.
  Give the Obama administration a chance to present their plan for 
closing Guantanamo. As Colin Powell, John McCain, and many others have 
said, closing Guantanamo is an important step toward restoring American 
values and actually making America a safer country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend President Obama 
on his recent decision to continue military commissions at Guantanamo 
Bay. I think the decision shows the President's realistic assessment of 
the value

[[Page 12855]]

of the commissions. Resuming them will also ensure that justice will be 
brought to the suspected terrorists currently awaiting the commission. 
The President has also shown an invigorating commitment to winning the 
war in Afghanistan, and he has resisted brash decisions to exit Iraq 
before the security situation has been fully stabilized.
  However, today, I must temper my comments with an admonition. The 
President needs to reverse his order to close Guantanamo Bay. We are 
all familiar with the President's Executive order. It was signed in the 
first hours of his Presidency. It announced the closure of the prison 
within 1 year. To say the Executive order is short on detail is an 
understatement. We have learned that the Justice Department is 
reviewing the cases of the individual detainees and that the President 
would like to move the detainees somewhere else. That is really all the 
Executive order tells us.
  About 240 detainees are now being held at Guantanamo Bay. The 
administration claims that not every detainee is a terrorist and that a 
few are kept at Guantanamo simply because other countries are very slow 
to accept them. Well, let me tell you, in my judgment, that speaks 
volumes about the character and the fitness for society of these 
detainees. Other countries are literally dragging their feet in 
accepting them. In April, the President of France famously agreed to 
accept one detainee. A number of countries, such as Germany and 
Lithuania, have only said they will consider accepting detainees, 
despite the Attorney General's round-the-world tour to ask our allies 
to accept more.
  Let's assume the administration's projection that only half of the 
detainees there would be considered terrorists. Well, that is 120 
terrorists who would be brought to facilities on our soil; 120 
terrorists who would entice their brothers in arms worldwide to make 
every effort to break them out or at least wreak havoc on places where 
they are jailed; 120 terrorists whose trials and hearings will cause a 
community to virtually lock down every time they have to be transported 
from point A to point B.
  Last Friday, I had the opportunity to actually go to Guantanamo and 
visit the prison. Having seen the facilities, I am more confident than 
ever that we should keep Guantanamo operating.
  On my visit, I saw firsthand the treatment detainees receive there. 
The facilities there rival any Federal penitentiary. Detainees receive 
three meals per day that adhere to cultural dietary requirements.
  They stay in climate-controlled housing with beds. It was a warm day 
when we were there. Their housing is air-conditioned. They have 
flushing toilets and had all of the hygiene items we would use, such as 
toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, and shampoo. They have the opportunity 
to worship uninterrupted. They are provided prayer beads, rugs, and 
copies of the Koran. The Muslim call to prayer is observed in the camps 
five times a day, followed by 20 minutes of uninterrupted time to 
practice their faith. In fact, we happened to be there during the call 
of the prayer, and the camp literally shuts down to allow them to have 
that time. They have access to satellite TV and a library with more 
than 12,000 items in 19 languages, including magazines, DVDs, and 
Arabic newspapers. I will bet their big-screen television--really 
state-of-the-art television--is bigger than most in the average home in 
America.
  Most remarkable, though, is the medical care provided to detainees at 
Guantanamo. Most people don't realize this, but detainees receive the 
same quality of medical care as the U.S. servicemembers who guard them. 
They have access to medical care anytime they need it, and there is a 
two-to-one detainee-to-medical-staff ratio. They get preventive care, 
such as vaccinations and cancer screenings. In addition to routine 
medical care, detainees have been treated for preexisting medical 
conditions, even to the extent of receiving cancer treatment or 
prosthetic limbs. This is likely better treatment than they would 
receive in their home countries.
  The courtroom constructed at Guantanamo was designed specifically to 
deal with military commissions. I am a lawyer myself, and I have to 
tell you that I have never seen anything like this. To say that it is 
state of the art is to understate the quality of that courtroom. I will 
tell you that I am convinced there is not another courtroom anywhere in 
the world with better equipment than what we have installed at 
Guantanamo.
  To top it all off, earlier this year, the Vice Chief of Naval 
Operations reviewed conditions at Guantanamo and issued a report that 
the detainees' confinement conformed to the Geneva Conventions. Despite 
public perception, no detainee has ever been waterboarded at 
Guantanamo.
  Why would we throw away a $200 million, state-of-the-art facility 
just to meet an artificial deadline in 2010 that I think really 
originated from an uninformed campaign promise?
  These are very dangerous people being held at Guantanamo. These are 
not a couple of teenagers who robbed a corner convenience store. There 
are 27 members of al-Qaida's leadership cadre currently housed at the 
prison, plus 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, which combined is 
about half the prison population at Guantanamo. There are also scores 
of Taliban members and foreign fighters.
  There was a survey that was done awhile back--it was released in 
April--and it indicated that 75 percent of Americans oppose releasing 
Guantanamo detainees in the United States, while only 13 percent 
support that. I am willing to bet the numbers opposing the transfer of 
prisoners to the United States would skyrocket even higher, although 
that is hard to imagine, if you told people that the terrorist 
detainees would be held in a prison near their town. But if moved to 
the United States, they have to be near some town.
  The President submitted an $80 million funding request for the 
detainees to be transferred, despite having no plan outlining their 
destination. Fifty million dollars of the President's funding request 
would go to the Department of Defense to actually transfer the 
detainees from the prison. But we don't know where. This lack of a plan 
and lack of transparency deeply disturbs me.
  Alarmingly, two of the sites on U.S. soil that some speculate would 
house transferred detainees are at Fort Leavenworth, KS, or the 
supermax facility in Colorado. Both facilities are within 250 miles of 
the Nebraska border. That alarms me and my constituents. That is why I 
sent a letter to Attorney General Holder on April 23 requesting a 
personal briefing before any decision is made to move current 
Guantanamo detainees within 400 miles of Nebraska's borders.
  But simply being notified that detainees are about to be transferred 
won't suffice. That amounts to telling the passengers to hold on before 
the bus crashes. It is for these reasons that I believe we should deny 
funding to transfer detainees and in fact not close the prison at 
Guantanamo. It is for these reasons that I support S. 370, the 
Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, introduced 
by the senior Senator from Oklahoma.
  The bill prohibits Federal funds from being used to transfer any 
detainees out of Guantanamo to any facility in the United States or its 
territories. It also prohibits any Federal funds from being used for 
the construction or enhancement of any facility in the United States in 
order to house any detainee. Finally, it prohibits any Federal funds 
from being used to house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee in the 
United States or its territories. It will keep our communities safe by 
preventing terrorists from being thrust into our cities and towns.
  I will close by reminding Senators that in 2007, the Senate voted 94 
to 3 to express its opposition to moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. 
soil or releasing them into American society. President Obama's 
Executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo demonstrates his 
intention to ignore the will of the Senate and the American people. 
Despite an overwhelming vote, the administration apparently still

[[Page 12856]]

plans to bring terrorist detainees from Guantanamo near our 
communities.
  I hope we have the opportunity to once again address this issue. 
There is a pending amendment which I support. But I also urge the 
President to reconsider his decision to close the prison. I encourage 
my colleagues to support the amendment that is before this body to deny 
funding for closing the prison.
  I look forward to a robust debate on this issue as we delve into this 
very important matter. Amendments will be offered. I think this is the 
most important issue we are going to face in a long time. Action to 
close the prison and move these people here is unacceptable. It is 
unthinkable to the American public. We must yield to their collective 
wisdom and hear their call. Anything else would be a grave mistake.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                           Amendment No. 1136

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an 
amendment I am about to offer that relates to the President's Executive 
order of January 22 on the disposition of detainees at Guantanamo.
  As part of that Executive order, a so-called detainee task force was 
created for the purpose of reviewing the records of detainees to 
determine whether they should be released. It is my view that any 
information obtained by this task force should be made readily 
available to the appropriate chairman and ranking members of the 
committees of jurisdiction. So the amendment I am about to send to the 
desk establishes a reporting requirement that would require the 
administration to provide a threat assessment of every detainee held at 
Guantanamo. This threat assessment, which could be shared with Congress 
in a classified report--remember, this would be in a classified report 
only--would indicate the likelihood of detainees returning to acts of 
terrorism. It would also report on and evaluate any threat that al-
Qaida might be making to recruit detainees once they are released from 
U.S. custody.
  Many of the remaining 240 detainees at Guantanamo are from Yemen, 
which has no rehabilitation program to speak of, and Saudi Arabia, 
which has a rehab program, but which, frankly, hasn't been very 
successful at keeping released detainees from rejoining the fight even 
after they go through this rehabilitation program. The recidivism among 
released detainees is of great concern to those of us who have 
oversight responsibilities here in Congress. So according to my 
amendment, the President would have to report to Congress before--I 
repeat, before--releasing any of the detainees at Guantanamo. More 
specifically, the administration would have to certify that any 
detainee it wishes to release prior to submitting this report poses no 
risk--no risk--to American military personnel stationed around the 
world.
  This is a simple amendment that reflects the concerns of Americans 
about the dangers of releasing terrorists either here or in their home 
countries where they could then return to the fight. Until now, the 
administration has offered vague assurances it will not do anything to 
make Americans less safe. This amendment says that Americans expect 
more than that. Americans want the assurance that the President's 
arbitrary deadline to close Guantanamo by next January will pose no 
risk to our military servicemembers overseas.
  I know there is an amendment pending at the desk, so I ask unanimous 
consent that it be set aside and that my amendment be sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1136.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit the release of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
 pending a report on the prisoner population at the detention facility 
                           at Guantanamo Bay)

       On page 31, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 315. (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to the members and 
     committees of Congress specified in subsection (b) a report 
     on the prisoner population at the detention facility at 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (b) Specified Members and Committees of Congress.--The 
     members and committees of Congress specified in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) The majority leader and minority leader of the Senate.
       (2) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate.
       (3) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (4) The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (5) The minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (6) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
       (7) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives
       (c) Matters To Be Included.--Each report required by 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) The name and country of origin of each detainee at the 
     detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of the date of 
     such report.
       (2) A current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and 
     information used to justify the detention of each detainee 
     listed under paragraph (1) at Guantanamo Bay.
       (3) A current accounting of all the measures taken to 
     transfer each detainee listed under paragraph (1) to the 
     individual's country of citizenship or another country.
       (4) A current description of the number of individuals 
     released or transferred from detention at Guantanamo Bay who 
     are confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist 
     activities after release or transfer from Guantanamo Bay.
       (5) An assessment of any efforts by al Qaeda to recruit 
     detainees released from detention at Guantanamo Bay.
       (6) For each detainee listed under paragraph (1), a threat 
     assessment that includes--
       (A) an assessment of the likelihood that such detainee may 
     return to terrorist activity after release or transfer from 
     Guantanamo Bay;
       (B) an evaluation of the status of any rehabilitation 
     program in such detainee's country of origin, or in the 
     country such detainee is anticipated to be transferred to; 
     and
       (C) an assessment of the risk posed to the American people 
     by the release or transfer of such detainee from Guantanamo 
     Bay.
       (d) Form.--The report required under subsection (a), or 
     parts thereof, may be submitted in classified form.
       (e) Limitation on Release or Transfer.--No detainee 
     detained at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act may be released 
     or transferred to another country until the President--
       (1) submits to Congress the first report required by 
     subsection (a); or
       (2) certifies to the members and committees of Congress 
     specified in subsection (b) that such action poses no threat 
     to the members of the United States Armed Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 1137

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside to allow me to call up a technical amendment, 
which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1137.

  The amendment is as follows:

       (a) In General.--Unless otherwise designated, each amount 
     in this title is designated as being for overseas deployments 
     and other activities pursuant to sections 401(c)(4) and 
     423(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     amount rescinded in section 308 for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this technical amendment clarifies the 
treatment of a rescission proposal included in the bill, and has been 
cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 12857]]


  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The issue before the Senate includes the question of 
Guantanamo, and I know there has been some recent activity on this 
legislation.
  Addressing this issue, the Federal Government has no higher 
responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of every American. 
Since 9/11, our Nation has taken a number of steps to safeguard us from 
the threat of terrorism, including the development of a facility to 
detain enemy combatants at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
  Over the course of our campaign against terrorism, that detention 
facility came under harsh scrutiny; doing great harm to our stature 
around the world.
  In June of 2005, I told a group of newspaper editors that the 
detention facility at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay had become a 
lightning rod for global criticism, and at some point a country has to 
reexamine the cost-benefit ratio of operating a facility that has such 
a poor public face.
  As a lawyer, I noted that it wasn't very American to be holding 
people indefinitely with no system in place to process and grant review 
of the detention and some form of due process.
  Suspected enemy combatants had essentially become akin to POWs; but 
because of the unique nature of the ongoing war on terror, they could 
not be released.
  What I knew then, and what I know now is that though many wanted to 
close Guantanamo--a view that would eventually be shared publicly by 
President Bush and both candidates for President Senators John McCain 
and Barack Obama--we did not have a good plan for how to legally 
advance beyond that wish.
  So we had an idea--to close Guantanamo--but no good path to achieve 
that without endangering Americans.
  The world has changed since 2005.
  Since then, a military commission system was established, prisoners 
were processed; the trying of unlawful enemy combatants began; trials 
concluded; and in some cases former Guantanamo Bay detainees were 
convicted of their charges, while others were acquitted and released.
  But now, we have gone from the rhetoric of the campaign to the very 
real pronouncement by the President that Guantanamo shall be closed 
down by January 2010.
  I agree, we need to close Guantanamo, but not before we have a 
concrete plan in place that holds captured enemy combatants accountable 
for their actions, while also not endangering the American public.
  President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis 
Blair clearly laid out that:

       The guiding principles for closing the center should be 
     protecting our national security, respecting the Geneva 
     Conventions and the rule of law, and respecting the existing 
     institutions of justice in this country.
       I also believe we should revitalize efforts to transfer 
     detainees to their countries of origin or other countries 
     whenever that would be consistent with these principles.
       Closing this center and satisfying these principles will 
     take time, and is the work of many departments and agencies.

  So again, we have the idea that we can all agree on, but in practice 
there is no plan; there is no clear path to achieving these goals.
  When choosing a path, we need to act very carefully and consider this 
decision in the context of our ability to continue processing prisoners 
under the Military Commissions Act; we need to consider whether and how 
habeas corpus would apply to detainees transferred to U.S. facilities; 
and we need to know the implications of trying Gitmo detainees in 
Federal Court.
  Today, some 240 individuals are held at Gitmo's detention center.
  Of these, eighty detainees potentially face prosecution for war 
crimes before Military Commissions at Guantanamo and two individuals 
have already been convicted of war crimes before the Commissions.
  These Commissions were created by Congress under the Detainee 
Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act as a means for 
prosecuting the unique type of enemy we confront in this new type of 
warfare.
  But then came the Supreme Court's opinion in Boumediene v. Bush.
  In that opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy on behalf of the five-
member majority, the Court did something that has never been done in 
the history of our Nation.
  The Court extended the constitutional writ of habeas corpus to 
foreigners detained in foreign lands.
  That means the Court extended to foreign terror suspects detained at 
Guantanamo Bay the same constitutional rights and privileges that U.S. 
citizens enjoy in U.S. courts.
  Seizing on this unprecedented constitutional interpretation, the 
lawyers of several Gitmo detainees quickly filed motions in Federal 
district courts seeking to have their clients brought into the U.S., 
and in some cases, asked that their clients be released or ``paroled'' 
onto the streets of American cities and communities.
  This is the world we live in given the Court's decision in 
Boumediene--a world in which foreigners, who have been trained at 
terrorist camps in Afghanistan, have been granted the right to be 
released onto the streets of American cities.
  It was against this backdrop that President Obama decided on his 
first day in office to halt further Military Commission trials and to 
mandate the closing of Gitmo by January of next year.
  Let's be clear about what we are dealing with here.
  These detainees are not accused of shoplifting; they are not accused 
of robbing a bank; they are not accused of organizing a single or 
double homicide.
  They are accused of working as unlawful enemy combatants with the aim 
of killing as many Americans as they can kill, most of them completely 
committed to their goal, they are ``irreconcilables.''
  We are still in the midst of a global war on terror against an enemy 
bent on attacking Americans wherever and whenever it can. There is no 
question that this war is unprecedented. There is no question we face 
unique and difficult choices. But one thing is very clear: We should 
never allow alleged enemy combatants to enter or be released in the 
United States. No court, civilian or military, should ever be asked to 
decide whether the foreign terrorist trainee before it is ``safe 
enough'' to be brought into the United States and released into our 
streets. The American people deserve greater protections from us than 
that would warrant them, and we must remember that their personal 
safety and our national security is our No. 1 priority.
  Guantanamo is a world-class facility that is well-suited for the 
unique circumstances of the global war on terror. Even Attorney General 
Holder has declared the facility to be ``well run'' and noted that 
Gitmo personnel conduct themselves in an appropriate way. I myself have 
visited there, and I understand what he is saying, because it is a good 
example of a fine detention facility. It is good that the military 
commissions were working and were achieving fair results and may be 
coming back.
  For example, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's personal driver and body 
man, was convicted of providing material support to al-Qaida and 
sentenced to a mere 5\1/2\ years by a jury of military officers. This 
result demonstrates the effectiveness and the type of justice provided 
by the military commissions. This is why they should resume immediately 
at the only venue in the world that has been built to facilitate them, 
and that is the facility at Gitmo.
  One thing I do want to make clear as we continue to have debate over 
the facility's future, I remind my colleagues that when we talk about 
Gitmo's future, we are referencing the detention center, not the U.S. 
Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. That naval base is the landlord to the 
detention center, but it also serves as a vital base for our Navy and 
is a key strategic place.
  The overall facility is the U.S. Naval Station providing fleet 
support, ship replenishment, and refueling for the

[[Page 12858]]

U.S. Navy and also for the Coast Guard as well as allied and friendly 
nations. It is a key processing center for Haitians and Cubans seeking 
asylum. The U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay is home to more than 
8,500 active-duty servicemembers and their families and civilian 
support contractors.
  We cannot lose sight of the important role the base plays in our 
national security, and the continued need for infrastructure 
improvements and enhancements, all that have absolutely nothing to do 
with the detention facility. As we continue to debate the facility's 
future, I want to underscore the importance of making a thoughtful and 
careful decision rather than one that may be what is expedient, for the 
moment.
  We need a plan on how to move forward given the considerations I have 
discussed today. So I hope as the discussion goes forward, we will put 
the interests and the safety of the American people first. I know the 
portion of this bill before us which dealt with the Guantanamo facility 
and the allocation of $80 million to close down the facility may be 
removed from the bill or considered in a different form. I would be 
encouraged if we are not at the moment funding the closing of this 
facility until we have a game plan in mind of what we are going to do 
with the facility and the detainees who are there.
  We still have not addressed what we are going to do between now and 
January of 2010. There still is no plan. There still is no future for 
what will happen to the 240 detainees who currently reside at the 
detention facility at the United States Naval Station in Guantanamo, 
Cuba.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to support and thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator 
from Hawaii, for his amendment to strike the Guantanamo Bay funding in 
the supplemental bill before us.
  Last week in the Appropriations Committee which he chairs, I raised 
this issue at the markup with the intent to strike the funding for the 
Department of Justice. At the behest of the chairman and ranking 
member, I did not offer the amendment which I intended to offer today.
  This supplemental, as reported out of the Appropriations Committee, 
fulfilled the Department of Justice request originally for $30 million 
to fund the President's reckless campaign promise to shut down the 
Guantanamo Bay detention facility and determine the fate of the 241 
terrorists being held there.
  I also believe that funding for the Department of Justice to carry 
out the President's Executive order is just the beginning of efforts to 
begin the investigations of U.S. officials who interrogated terrorists 
who killed or attempted to kill American citizens.
  In a Department of Justice hearing before the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on May 7, I asked the Attorney General if he knew about or 
sanctioned any of the renditions that occurred when he served as the 
Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration. He said he 
did, but could not provide specifics and would get back to the 
committee with a response. We are still waiting for that response. 
Yesterday, in following up with that, I sent a letter to the Attorney 
General following up on many of the unanswered questions left after the 
hearing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at 
this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2009.
     Hon. Eric Holder,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Holder: I am writing to follow up on 
     some of the issues raised during your hearing before the 
     Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
     Science, and Related Agencies on May 7, 2009. Below are a 
     number of questions posed during the hearing, as well as some 
     additional questions I have relating to a potential criminal 
     investigation of U.S. officials who drafted the legal 
     opinions upon which the CIA based its interrogation program, 
     and who actually participated in the interrogation of 
     detainees. Also included are questions relating to the 
     disposition of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Your immediate 
     response would be greatly appreciated.
       1. During your tenure as the Deputy Attorney General of the 
     United States, 1997 to 2001, did you know that President 
     Clinton approved of and actively engaged in the practice 
     known as rendition? Did you or anyone in the Department of 
     Justice express a legal opinion on, participate in, or 
     approve any rendition? What actions did you take to ensure 
     any such rendition complied with United States or 
     international law? What actions did you take to ensure that 
     any interrogations of any such individuals rendered by the 
     United States were conducted by the receiving country in a 
     manner consistent with United States or international law? 
     Did you or anyone on your behalf ever determine whether any 
     useful intelligence was obtained from any such individuals 
     rendered by or on behalf of the United States? Did you or 
     anyone on your behalf ever attempt to determine how that 
     information was obtained and whether any such individuals 
     rendered by or on behalf the United States was subjected to 
     any treatment that would violate United States or 
     international laws?
       2. In an exchange with Senator Alexander during the hearing 
     you mentioned an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 
     inquiry into the work of the attorneys who prepared the 
     Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda regarding 
     interrogation. It has been reported that the OPR report 
     criticizes the competence of the authors of the memoranda.
       a. Has the OPR. prior to this review. ever reviewed legal 
     opinions drafted by the OLC? If so, please explain in detail, 
     including whether any such review involved intelligence 
     matters or the President's war powers?
       b. Presuming the OPR reviewed the legal opinions of the OLC 
     regarding the CIA's interrogation program, please describe, 
     in detail, the standards of review applicable to any such OPR 
     review. Also, provide a copy of any standards of conduct or 
     any other Department of Justice policy guidance regarding the 
     conduct of attorneys used by the OPR in its reviews. What 
     conclusions did OPR reach in any such review?
       c. How many attorneys currently work in the Office of 
     Professional Responsibility? Do any of them have expertise in 
     constitutional law, intelligence matters, treaty compliance, 
     and/or separation of powers? If so, please provide detailed 
     information regarding each attorney's individual expertise in 
     these areas. Is the OPR seeking outside guidance in any of 
     these areas? If so, please provide specific information on 
     these individuals or sources.
       d. Did any of the personnel in the OPR work on cases or 
     policies arising from our government's response to the 9/11 
     attacks? If so, please provide the names of these 
     individuals.
       3. Attorney General Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General 
     Filip were presented with a draft of an OPR report near the 
     end of the Bush Administration. This was after more than four 
     years of investigation and thousands of dollars in taxpayer 
     funds being expended. Press reports have suggested that 
     Mukasey and Filip rejected the idea that OLC attorneys should 
     be subject to sanctions.
       a. Please explain why you have decided to overrule Attorney 
     General Mukasey's decision. Also, please provide the 
     Committee with all instances, if any, where an incoming 
     Attorney General has reversed the decision of his or her 
     predecessor regarding a recommendation by the OPR.
       b. News reports suggest that the OPR will criticize the 
     Bybee memorandum that argues that the anti-torture statute 
     cannot interfere with the President's constitutional 
     authorities. Did the OPR ever investigate the opinions of the 
     Clinton Justice Department to determine if it claimed that 
     the President's constitutional authorities would allow him to 
     act in violation of Acts of Congress? If not, why not? If so, 
     please provide those opinions.
       c. Does the OPR report address whether the interrogation 
     methods used actually produced useful intelligence? If not, 
     why not? If so, please list all U.S. Government personnel 
     interviewed by the OPR to make such a determination.
       4. The provision of accurate legal advice regarding the 
     conduct of intelligence operations will necessarily entail 
     the consideration of not only many types of activities, but 
     also very difficult legal issues. On many occasions, 
     reasonable attorneys may disagree on whether such activities 
     are consistent with or violate United States or international 
     law. The investigation, and possible sanctioning, of 
     attorneys for the provision of legal advice in areas of law 
     that are less than clear will absolutely have a chilling 
     effect on their ability to provide accurate legal opinions. 
     Faced with sanctions, attorneys will undoubtedly choose to 
     stay well within the law. Intelligence operations will then 
     he unnecessarily limited falling well short of what the 
     Congress and the President may be prepared to sanction. With 
     this in mind, won't risk aversion driven by chilled legal 
     advice recreate the bureaucratic attitude that contributed to 
     our inability to detect and stop the 9/11 attacks?

[[Page 12859]]


       5. Do you believe the President has the legal authority to 
     bring terrorists, former terrorists or anyone who has 
     received terrorist training into the United States and 
     release them into our communities? If so, please provide a 
     copy of that authority?
       6. In your testimony before the Committee you stated that 
     with ``regard to the release decisions that we will make, we 
     will look at these cases on an individualized basis and make 
     determinations as to where they can appropriately be 
     placed.'' What are the criteria on which you will base a 
     decision to place an individual currently being held in 
     Guantanamo in the United States? Please be more specific than 
     the general guidance given in the President's Executive 
     Order.
       Thank you for your immediate attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Richard Shelby.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, renditions and interrogations were carried 
out on Attorney General Holder's watch, when he was the Deputy Attorney 
General. I have serious concerns that the Attorney General could 
eventually be leading investigations and prosecutions against U.S. 
officials who carried out the very same actions he approved during his 
time as Deputy Attorney General.
  Yet the Executive orders failed to include any investigation of his 
role in approving renditions of detainees and terrorists that occurred 
during his previous tenure at the Justice Department.
  To go back in time, the first terrorist attack on the World Trade 
Center occurred on February 26, 1993. We later saw the bombings of the 
USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, and Khobar Towers take place before 
the second attack on the World Trade Center.
  Many of the terrorists who committed these acts were trained in the 
very same camps as the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. When I asked 
the Attorney General if the Government had the legal authority to admit 
someone who had received terrorist training into the United States, he 
would not answer the question directly. He indicated he would not 
release anyone who he thought was a terrorist in the United States--who 
he thought.
  All of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, I believe, are 
terrorists. Does anyone but the administration and the Attorney General 
believe anything to the contrary? I think it is misguided to close a 
facility housing terrorists when there is no plan. All of the prisoners 
housed at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists. Terrorists attacked our Nation 
and killed our citizens and pose a threat still today to our national 
security.
  We should not, I believe, let this Attorney General or anyone else 
brand these terrorists as victims worthy of living in the United States 
of America, nor should we follow the plans of the Director of National 
Intelligence, Dennis Blair, who suggested that terrorists be provided 
with a taxpayer-funded subsidy to establish a new life here in America.
  Until we are clear about Attorney General Holder's role in renditions 
and interrogations prior to 9/11, and what this administration is 
proposing to do with these terrorists once Guantanamo is closed, I 
believe it is premature to provide this funding.
  I again commend the chairman for his actions today and I believe the 
Senate is on the right track. I hope we stay there.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1139

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have conferred with the bill managers, 
the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the 
distinguished ranking member. I have an amendment I would like to call 
up. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INOUYE. I object momentarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Without objection, the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1139.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the interrogators, 
attorneys, and lawmakers who tried in good faith to protect the United 
   States and abide by the law should not be prosecuted or otherwise 
                              sanctioned)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, 
     there was bipartisan consensus that preventing further 
     terrorist attacks on the United States was the most urgent 
     responsibility of the United States Government.
       (2) A bipartisan joint investigation by the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives concluded that the September 11, 2001 attacks 
     demonstrated that the intelligence community had not shown 
     ``sufficient initiative in coming to grips with the new 
     transnational threats''.
       (3) By mid-2002, the Central Intelligence Agency had 
     several top al Qaeda leaders in custody.
       (4) The Central Intelligence Agency believed that some of 
     these al Qaeda leaders knew the details of imminent plans for 
     follow-on attacks against the United States.
       (5) The Central Intelligence Agency believed that certain 
     enhanced interrogation techniques might produce the 
     intelligence necessary to prevent another terrorist attack 
     against the United States.
       (6) The Central Intelligence Agency sought legal guidance 
     from the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice 
     as to whether such enhanced interrogation techniques, 
     including one that the United States military uses to train 
     its own members in survival, evasion, resistance, and escape 
     training, would comply with United States and international 
     law if used against al Qaeda leaders reasonably believed to 
     be planning imminent attacks against the United States.
       (7) The Office of Legal Counsel is the proper authority 
     within the executive branch for addressing difficult and 
     novel legal questions, and providing legal advice to the 
     executive branch in carrying out official duties.
       (8) Before mid-2002, no court in the United States had 
     interpreted the phrases ``severe physical or mental pain or 
     suffering'' and ``prolonged mental harm'' as used in sections 
     2340 and 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (9) The legal questions posed by the Central Intelligence 
     Agency and other executive branch officials were a matter of 
     first impression, and in the words of the Office of Legal 
     Counsel, ``substantial and difficult''.
       (10) The Office of Legal Counsel approved the use by the 
     Central Intelligence Agency of certain enhanced interrogation 
     techniques, with specific limitations, in seeking actionable 
     intelligence from al Qaeda leaders.
       (11) The legal advice of the Office of Legal Counsel 
     regarding interrogation policy was reviewed by a host of 
     executive branch officials, including the Attorney General, 
     the Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the 
     President, the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency, the General Counsel of the National Security Council, 
     the legal advisor of the Attorney General, the head of the 
     Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and the 
     Counsel to the Vice President.
       (12) The majority and minority leaders in both Houses of 
     Congress, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and 
     the chairmen and vice chairmen of the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives received 
     classified briefings on the legal analysis by the Office of 
     Legal Counsel and the proposed interrogation program of the 
     Central Intelligence Agency as early as September 4, 2002.
       (13) Porter Goss, then-chairman of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, 
     recalls that he and then-ranking member Nancy Pelosi 
     ``understood what the CIA was doing'', ``gave the CIA our 
     bipartisan support'', ``gave the CIA funding to carry out its 
     activities'', and ``On a bipartisan basis . . . asked if the 
     CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its 
     mission against al-Qaeda''.
       (14) No member of Congress briefed on the legal analysis of 
     the Office of Legal Counsel and the proposed interrogation 
     program of

[[Page 12860]]

     the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 objected to the 
     legality of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including 
     ``waterboarding'', approved in legal opinions of the Office 
     of Legal Counsel.
       (15) Using all lawful means to secure actionable 
     intelligence based on the legal guidance of the Office of 
     Legal Counsel provides national leaders a means to detect, 
     deter, and defeat further terrorist acts against the United 
     States.
       (16) The enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the 
     Office of Legal Counsel have, in fact, accomplished the goal 
     of providing intelligence necessary to defeating additional 
     terrorist attacks against the United States.
       (17) Congress has previously established a defense for 
     persons who engaged in operational practices in the war on 
     terror in good faith reliance on advice of counsel that the 
     practices were lawful.
       (18) The Senate stands ready to work with the Obama 
     Administration to ensure that leaders of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and the intelligence community continue to 
     have the resources and tools required to prevent additional 
     terrorist attacks on the United States.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that no 
     person who provided input into the legal opinions by the 
     Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice 
     analyzing the legality of the enhanced interrogation program, 
     nor any person who relied in good faith on those opinions, 
     nor any member of Congress who was briefed on the enhanced 
     interrogation program and did not object to the program going 
     forward should be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned.

  Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire, my amendment is currently the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my amendment calls for an end to the poisonous 
environment of recriminations and second-guessing and even threats of 
prosecution that have overtaken the debate about detention and 
interrogation policy in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. This 
amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that neither the lawyers 
who offered good-faith legal advice regarding the legality of 
interrogation techniques, nor any person who relied in good faith on 
that legal advice, nor any Member of Congress who was briefed 
beforehand on these enhanced interrogation techniques and who did not 
object should be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned. This is, 
obviously, a sense of the Senate, but I think it is important that the 
Senate's will be determined and recognized on such a sensitive and 
important topic.
  I know it is hard for us to remember now what it was like in the days 
following 9/11. Believe it or not, there was a broad bipartisan 
consensus that America and all Americans, including Congress, should 
work aggressively within the law to detect, deter, and indeed to defeat 
further terrorist attacks. Responding to this consensus, patriotic 
Americans in our intelligence service; namely, the Central Intelligence 
Agency, the administration, and Congress did everything within our 
legal power to protect the country from a follow-on terrorist attack.
  We recall the horrible day when we saw two airplanes fly into the 
World Trade Center in New York. But it is not beyond the realm of 
concern that, indeed, the same terrorists who effected those horrible 
attacks, killing 3,000 Americans, roughly, on that day, would use some 
more effective weapon of perhaps a nuclear, biological, or chemical 
nature. So we know our intelligence officials and the administration 
and Congress were acutely aware of the environment in which they were 
acting.
  Our intelligence officials believed they could produce actionable 
intelligence by using some enhanced interrogation techniques, including 
one that is performed as part of training on some of our own U.S. 
military personnel; that if the Office of Legal Counsel at the 
Department of Justice determined this was a legal way for them to gain 
actual intelligence, perhaps, just perhaps, it could generate 
intelligence which would allow the Central Intelligence Agency and our 
military forces to defeat any follow-on terrorist attacks.
  It is worthwhile to remember, as my sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
does, that after the Central Intelligence Agency asked whether these 
enhanced interrogation techniques were, in fact, lawful, the Office of 
Legal Counsel, which is the authoritative branch that provides legal 
advice to the executive branch and the U.S. Government, was asked to 
render an opinion on whether use of these enhanced techniques, 
including waterboarding, was, in fact, legal. In fact, after much input 
and consultation within the executive branch and the lawyers for 
various parts of the executive branch discussed and interpreted what 
the constraints of the law were under both international as well as 
domestic laws, they concluded that under specific guidelines and 
limitations, it would be lawful for the Central Intelligence Agency, in 
questioning known al-Qaida leaders, to use this technique in order to 
gain intelligence that would perhaps save many more lives in the 
future.
  We know how controversial this turned out to be, but it is important 
to remember that at the time, it did not prove to be so controversial. 
In fact, after the CIA asked for permission to use these enhanced 
techniques, we know the Office of Legal Counsel rendered legal opinions 
authorizing the use of these techniques under certain limitations. And 
then, in fact, leadership here in Congress was briefed on those 
techniques. Specifically, under these circumstances, as the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution points out, not only would the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives be briefed but also the majority and the 
minority leaders in both Houses of Congress, as well as the chairman 
and ranking member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That would have been back in 
2002--of course, much closer in proximity to the horrible events of 
2001--when, no doubt, Members of Congress and members of the executive 
branch were thinking: What can we do to prevent further terrorist 
attacks against the United States?
  One of the things that we have heard in the days since these opinions 
out of the Office of Legal Counsel have been controversial is that some 
lawyers have different opinions from those rendered by the lawyers at 
the Office of Legal Counsel. I can tell my colleagues, as a lawyer 
myself for 30 years, what lawyers do best is disagree with one another. 
There is nothing unexpected about that. But we should not turn 
disagreements between lawyers into witch hunts and into pursuing good-
faith rendition of legal opinions as well as intelligence officials 
relying on those opinions in order to try to protect our country.
  One distinguished law professor testified to the Judiciary Committee 
last week:

       To ratchet-up simple disagreement with the legal analysis 
     of a prior administration into the claim that such analysis 
     was beyond the pale of legitimate legal analysis, and 
     therefore should be investigated and punished, is to be 
     engaged in a mild form of legal neo-McCarthyism.

  Mr. President, I was not in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001. I 
was in my home in Austin, TX, when I saw these terrible images of these 
planes flying into the World Trade Center. But one of the images I 
remember in the aftermath of those attacks was of the Members of 
Congress, of both parties, joined together on the Capitol steps singing 
``God Bless America.''
  In the aftermath of that day, Americans, at least for a time, were 
united in our determination that it would not happen again. That is why 
it is particularly sad to see the bitter political divisions of the 
present being invoked to condemn the good-faith actions of the past and 
to hear calls to prosecute not only the intelligence officials in the 
CIA but also prior administration officials and, indeed, the Congress 
who answered the call when the American people demanded with one voice 
that we keep them safe.
  If we want to be able to look back at our detention and interrogation 
policies, and learn what worked and what did not, we need to try to 
maintain our sense of perspective and objectivity and fairness and be 
respectful of both the circumstances under which these officials 
reached these opinions and the reliance the intelligence officials and 
other high Government officials had upon those legal opinions in 
deciding

[[Page 12861]]

what they could and could not do. Indeed, who would question their use 
of all legitimate means to gain actual intelligence that may indeed 
have saved American lives? We cannot learn together from our past 
successes or failures while recklessly accusing one another of crimes 
while criminalizing policy differences.
  In the end, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is an appeal to a 
sense of decency. We should be united in our commitment to liberty, 
justice, and security under the law.
  The American people want unity and not partisan prosecutions or 
sanctions imposed against those officials who were simply trying, to 
the very best of their ability, to do their job and to keep the 
American people safe. This amendment says, in the end, that the Senate 
agrees with that proposition. I would ask for the support of all my 
colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today, those of us who have strongly 
insisted that no terrorist currently in Guantanamo Bay should or will 
be transferred to the United States, I think, have won a big victory.
  I am going to be very frank about it. Faced with an embarrassing 
defeat, and listening to the American people, the Democratic leadership 
has accepted an amendment offered by Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, 
myself, and many others that prohibits the use of Federal funds to 
transfer or locate any Gitmo terrorist to the United States.
  This is an important, commonsense victory for the security of our 
country and more especially for Fort Leavenworth, KS. Following 
President Obama's decision to close Gitmo at the end of this year, 
there has been much speculation about moving terrorists to Leavenworth, 
especially in the press, and even on the Senate floor. I responded with 
remarks several weeks ago: ``Not on my watch.''
  The problem is that while we have prohibited the use of funds to 
transfer terrorists to the United States, the Obama administration 
still has proposed no plan to meet their own January deadline. That 
does remain a challenge, and it means that while we won a victory 
today--no funds--it seems to me we must remain vigilant to make sure 
future plans do not include locations in the United States, including 
Leavenworth.
  There are simply too many security risks and the possibility of 
negative impacts on our Kansas citizens and the Intellectual Center of 
the Army at Fort Leavenworth to even consider moving terrorists to 
Kansas.
  I hope President Obama and his team designated to come up with a plan 
can come to the realization that closing Gitmo actually poses new 
problems in terms of security and logistics and legal issues.
  Now that we are all on the same page, let's find a better answer and 
one that does not endanger Leavenworth, KS, or any other community in 
the United States.
  I also wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, Mike Johanns, who I think summarized the whole 
situation very well. I wish to thank Senator Inhofe for persevering. I 
wish to thank my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator 
from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for his leadership in this regard.
  But during this debate, and for some time, it seems to me we have 
seen a change in how those who are incarcerated at Gitmo are now being 
defined and described in the media, in the administration and, as a 
consequence, by some Americans.
  I understand there is a poor perception of Guantanamo Bay. I think 
that is a fact we all realize. We heard another Senator from the other 
side of the aisle describe that in detail--as a matter of fact, 
ascribed all the problems to the Bush administration. But I do not 
think that is relevant. To say there are no terrorists there, to say 
there are not even enemy combatants there, is doing a disservice to us 
all by trivializing the crimes committed by the men at Guantanamo Bay.
  I ask you, when did we start making terror politically correct? This 
same question was asked by Daniel Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, in an 
article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this past February. It is 
called: ``Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil.'' I think every 
Senator and every American should read it, more especially in regard to 
this debate on where we locate these terrorists.
  As you may know, and we should all remember, Daniel Pearl was the 
American journalist who was captured and beheaded--beheaded--on a video 
by the ``nonterrorist, nonenemy combatant'' Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 
2002--beheaded by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is actually sitting at 
Guantanamo Bay right now.
  Listen to what Judea Pearl, a respected professor at UCLA, has to say 
about that act of terror on his son:

       Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 
     genuinely hoped that Danny's murder would be a turning point 
     in the history of man's inhumanity to man, and that the 
     targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would 
     quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an 
     embarrassing relic of a bygone era.
       But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of 
     resistance, has gained acceptance in the most elite circles 
     of our society. The words ``war on terror'' cannot be uttered 
     today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it 
     seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to 
     be disgusted by evil.

  Well, this Senator remains disgusted by evil. I am disgusted by those 
who target innocent civilians as they spew their hatred. I refuse to 
adopt what Danny's father calls ``the mentality of surrender.'' And 
that is weaved throughout this debate in regard to what happens to 
these terrorists.
  It is not too late. We can all refuse to surrender to the idea that 
terrorism is somehow a tactic, to refuse to believe it is an acceptable 
tool of resistance.
  There is still time for Americans to remember that there are men at 
Guantanamo who cannot be released and most certainly should not be on 
American soil.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Credit Card Reform

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to speak off the bill. I know my 
colleagues are talking about the supplemental appropriations bill. But 
I wish to take a few minutes, if I could, with the permission of the 
managers of the legislation, to talk about the credit card legislation 
that passed this morning. I did not have the opportunity, given the 
time constraints, to express some brief thoughts about the passage of 
that legislation.
  So I rise to thank my colleagues. By an overwhelming vote of 90 to 5, 
this body voted earlier today to adopt the credit card reform 
legislation. I am very grateful to my colleagues. I am grateful to 
Senator Shelby, my cochair, if you will, the former chairman of the 
Banking Committee, for his work.
  Obviously, this was a bipartisan effort, with a vote of 90 to 5. The 
final conclusion was one that was embraced by an overwhelming majority 
of our colleagues. I thank them for that.
  Twenty years ago, many of my colleagues who are still in this Chamber 
will recall how we stood to try to get the credit card industry to 
respond to some of the activities that began then. In those days, they 
were not quite as pernicious as they have become. But, nonetheless, you 
could see the handwriting on the wall as to where these issuers were 
headed. We did not engage as effectively then as we probably should 
have. We said then that too many of these companies were starting to 
cross a line, starting to engage in abusive, deceptive, and misleading 
practices that were trapping their customers into far more debt than 
certainly they, the customers, ever agreed to.
  But that was more than two decades ago, and since that time, we have 
all

[[Page 12862]]

seen what has happened across our Nation: penalty fees that are 
increasingly common, for infractions that are increasingly ridiculous--
for paying by phone or by e-mail or by check, which are ways you get 
penalized today; anytime, any reason under contracts, where interest 
rates could be raised that can turn a few hundred dollars of obligation 
into a lifetime of debt; disclosures that you need a microscope to read 
and a lawyer's degree to understand.
  For too long, credit card companies have resorted to tactics that 
drive families deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.
  Well, today the Senate let them know that those days are coming to an 
end. I am grateful to my colleagues for their votes.
  I wish to take a few minutes to thank fellow Senators and staff who 
have worked diligently to help me improve this legislation.
  As I mentioned earlier, Senator Shelby of Alabama played an important 
role, and I am grateful to him for agreeing to work on this bill. It 
came out of the committee on an 11-to-12 vote--the narrowest of 
margins. It was after that time that we worked to develop a bipartisan 
bill.
  In all, I believe this was an inclusive process--striking a very good 
balance that ensures we provide tough protections for consumers while 
making sure to maintain the flow of credit into our economy that is so 
essential to our long-term economic recovery.
  I wish to thank Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Claire McCaskill 
of Missouri, who led the charge to restrict overlimit fees and 
deceptive marketing of free credit reports.
  Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey has been a champion from the very 
beginning on issues impacting young people--requiring credit card 
companies to consider consumers' ability to pay when issuing credit 
cards, increasing protections for students against aggressive credit 
card marketing, and more transparency in affinity arrangements between 
credit card companies and universities.
  With respect to affinity cards and protection of students, I also 
wish to thank Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Feinstein of 
California, Senator Corker of Tennessee, and Senator Grassley of Iowa 
for their leadership as well.
  Let me also thank several of our colleagues with whom we worked to 
include protections regarding small business--Senator Ben Cardin of 
Maryland, Senator Johanns of Nebraska, and Senator Mary Landrieu of 
Louisiana. They strove mightily to include a study and report on the 
use of credit cards by small businesses.
  Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine worked with our Senate colleague from 
Louisiana to include the establishment of a Small Business Information 
Security Task Force in this legislation.
  Several additional measures were included at the behest of my 
colleagues that I think strengthen the legislation.
  Senator Charles Schumer of New York authored the provision to scale 
back abuses on prepaid gift cards, and that provision is now included 
in the bill that passed. Senator Dan Akaka of Hawaii wisely suggested 
we seek a clarification of the certification process for credit 
counselors--something I believe will prove extremely valuable given the 
clear need for greater financial literacy among consumers.
  Senator Susan Collins of Maine, with my colleague, Senator Lieberman 
of Connecticut, asked that we include provisions to prevent money 
laundering through the use of what they call stored value cards which 
are being increasingly used by drug cartels to smuggle money across our 
borders. I am happy we were able to include those provisions in the 
bill as well.
  My colleagues from California and New Hampshire, Senator Feinstein 
and Senator Gregg, worked with us to include a study and report on 
emergency PIN technology that would allow banking customers to signal 
for help when forced to withdraw cash from ATMs.
  Another study and report on which we worked with Senator Kohl of 
Wisconsin to include is on the marketing of products such as debt 
cancellation agreements, which some have long argued are of 
questionable benefit to consumers.
  Finally, I wish to thank the President of the United States, 
President Obama, for stepping up and stepping in, and for using the 
bully pulpit of his Presidency to help us gain public awareness of 
these issues as well.
  As we cross the finish line today and the House considers what we 
have sent them, I believe the victory will not be, of course, for our 
President or for the Congress or for the authors of this legislation or 
even for the Members I have mentioned in these remarks. Truly the 
victory will be for people such as Don and Samantha Moore of Guilford, 
CT, and their three daughters; or Kristina Jorgenson of Southbury CT; 
and Phil Sherwood, a member of the city council, of New Britain, CT. 
All of these constituents of mine came to me with stories about how 
they had seen abuses by the credit card industry.
  In the case of Don and Samantha Moore: 40 years of credit card 
allegiance, one 3-day-late payment resulted in an increase from 12 to 
27 percent in interest rates and reducing their credit limit from 
$32,000 to $4,000. They run a small business. It probably put them out 
of business--just for being 3 days late for the first time in 40 years.
  In the case of Kristina Jorgenson in Southbury: She watched her rates 
go from 5 percent to 24 percent for being 3 days late--the first time 
ever--in a credit card payment. One of those days was a Sunday, by the 
way. She had taken out the credit card debt to pay off her student 
loans. They charged her because of the retroactive fees, the 24 
percent, making it almost impossible for her to ever meet those 
obligations. To meet that criteria, she dipped into her individual 
retirement account which she had saved. She was in retirement and she 
has now cut that retirement down to 45 percent of its value in order to 
pay off the credit card debt. Three days late, one time, 5 percent to 
24 percent. Phil Sherwood didn't do anything at all. He paid his bills 
every month, never a day late, and watched his rates skyrocket, he and 
his wife.
  These stories I tell could be repeated over and over all across the 
country. More than 70 million accounts in one 11-month period, 
affecting one out of four families, saw interest rates skyrocket. For 
the life of me, I don't quite understand what the industry was thinking 
of, having just overreached time and time again. But as a result of the 
bill we passed today by the vote I mentioned, we have made significant 
inroads into the kind of practices the people I mentioned here were 
afflicted with.
  Unfortunately, it doesn't happen overnight. The bill has a period of 
time before the new restrictions go into effect. I would have liked to 
have had a much shorter period, but these bills require compromise, and 
they don't become the fulfillment of the wishes of any one Member of 
this body. It requires working with each other and, as a result of that 
effort, we ended up with a longer period of time than I liked but, 
nonetheless, less than the official period of the Federal Reserve 
Board's regulations, which would be a year and a half from now.
  So American consumers have a responsibility. That needs to be said 
over and over. But they also have rights, and those rights ought to be 
that they can count on a contract they enter into. I know of no other 
contractual relationship, whether it is purchasing a home, buying an 
automobile or an appliance, where the one party can virtually 
unilaterally change the terms of the contract. Yet that goes on every 
day with credit card issuers.
  Madam President, 20 to 25 percent of students now have over $7,000 in 
credit card debt--25 percent of our student body at the university and 
collegiate level. The average college graduate owes over $4,000, a 
major factor of some students dropping out of school.
  The average family in our country, with credit cards, now has what 
they call revolving debt--the bulk of which is credit card debt--well 
in excess of $10,000 per family. So, clearly, with those kinds of 
obligations and debts, something needed to be done. That is what we 
have done with this legislation.

[[Page 12863]]

  So the industry has obligations. Consumers have the right not to be 
taken to the cleaners, and they have a right to expect that they will 
be treated fairly when they enter into a contractual agreement; that 
they won't be the only ones required to uphold their end of the 
bargain. Certainly, consumers have a right not to live in fear that a 
clause buried in the fine print of their credit card contracts might 
someday be their financial undoing, and they should have a right to 
trust that their child won't be saddled with debt before they have 
turned 21.
  Standing up for those families and their children and forcing those 
rights is what this legislation was designed to do, and we accomplished 
that goal.
  So I wish to thank my colleagues again for their efforts, their 
diligence, their commitment to ensuring that we pass a strong bill that 
will benefit consumers across the country.
  I wish to thank majority leader Harry Reid, and I wish to thank the 
minority leader, the Republican leader. Harry Reid provided the time 
and space for the consideration of this bill which would not have 
happened if the leadership didn't decide to make that time available 
for something as complicated as this, with many different ideas that 
were brought to the table. I wish to thank the floor staff that is here 
for their work, both the majority and minority side as well. They were 
very patient. It has been over 2 weeks now.
  We dealt with the housing bill last week, and now the credit card 
bill this week, and they had to put up with me for 2 straight weeks on 
the floor of this Chamber. I am very grateful to them. I wish to thank 
my staff as well.
  Linsey Graham, who is on the Banking Committee staff, has done a 
magnificent job over the years and in working on this legislation. Amy 
Friend, Charles Yi, Colin McGinnis, along with other members of the 
staff, but they were the principal ones who spent long hours and nights 
over the weekends over the past several weeks to pull this legislation 
together.
  Bill Duhnke and Mark Oesterle of Senator Shelby's staff as well 
worked very hard, and I am very grateful to them.
  I wish to thank the staff here as well. Certainly, the majority 
leader's staff, Gary Myrick and Randy Devalk, who did a great job, and 
I thank them. I can't say enough about Lula Davis and about Tim 
Mitchell. Trish Engle and Jacques Purvis did a wonderful job. I thank 
them. I thank David, as well, on the minority staff. They were just 
wonderful.
  I tried their patience, I know, on more occasions than I care to 
remember, but without their involvement over these past several days we 
would not have been able to achieve this accomplishment today. That 
also includes Joe Lapia and Brandon Durflinger, Meredith Mellody and 
Esteban Galvan as well from the cloakroom staff who worked so hard.
  I am sure I have left some people out, and I apologize if I have done 
so in thanking them for their work. But all of these people in their 
own way contribute to what happens here. They don't often get 
mentioned. Those of us who have the right to speak in this Chamber are 
the ones who are seen and heard, but I want my constituents and people 
in this country to know there are people every day whose names you will 
never know, whose faces you will never see, who contribute mightily to 
the products that get produced in this body. It takes cooperation on 
the part of all of us, regardless of where we come from, what party 
affiliation we are, what ideological leanings we may have. They are 
wonderful, remarkable people who give their time and their professional 
careers to this institution and who make these kinds of events and 
these kinds of results achievable.
  So I thank them all, and I thank all of my colleagues again.
  I look forward to a day in the hopefully not too distant future when 
President Obama will sign this legislation into law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1140

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I have an amendment that I wish to 
call up at the desk. I wish to note that the chairman of the committee 
has been very good to work with me on getting this called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1140.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on consultation with State 
and local governments in the transfer to the United States of detainees 
                 at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 315. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) In response to written questions from the April 30, 
     2009, hearing of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate, the Secretary of Defense stated that--
       (A) in order to implement the Executive Order of the 
     President to close the detention facility at Naval Station 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ``it is likely that we will need a 
     facility or facilities in the United States in which to 
     house'' detainees; and
       (B) ``[p]ending the final decision on the disposition of 
     those detainees, the Department has not contacted state and 
     local officials about the possibility of transferring 
     detainees to their locations''.
       (2) The Senate specifically recognized the concerns of 
     local communities in a 2007 resolution, adopted by the Senate 
     on a 94-3 vote, stating that ``detainees housed at Guantanamo 
     should not be released into American society, nor should they 
     be transferred stateside into facilities in American 
     communities and neighborhoods''.
       (3) To date, members of the congressional delegations of 
     sixteen States have sponsored legislation seeking to prohibit 
     the transfer to their respective States and congressional 
     districts, or other locations in the United States, of 
     detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay
       (4) Legislatures and local governments in several States 
     have adopted measures announcing their opposition to housing 
     detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in their respective 
     States and localities.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Secretary of Defense should consult with State and local 
     government officials before making any decision about where 
     detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might be 
     transferred, housed, or otherwise incarcerated as a result of 
     the implementation of the Executive Order of the President to 
     close the detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo 
     Bay.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague, the 
chairman of the committee, for allowing this to be brought up. 
Obviously, people can object to different things, but he is allowing 
this to be brought up.
  It is a very simple amendment. It is germane as far as the Guantanamo 
Bay issue. Basically, what it says is, the Department of Defense needs 
to consult with local communities and States before they locate these 
detainees in a State or locale in the United States. I think that is 
something all of us would basically agree to--that this is something 
that should be done. This is a very contentious issue. It is obviously 
a very contentious issue in my State, having been mentioned a number of 
times as a possible site for detainees.
  People in the community of Leavenworth, KS, and people across the 
State of Kansas, including former Governor Sebelius, now Cabinet 
Secretary, sent a letter to the Department of Defense saying we can't 
handle the detainees at Leavenworth, the military disciplinary barracks 
that are there.
  So what I hope is that at some point in time we could vote on this 
amendment and send that clear message to the administration and the 
Department of Defense that before any of these things are considered, 
State and local officials are consulted because, obviously, on security 
issues, we are

[[Page 12864]]

going to have to do a lot of cooperation. If these detainees are moved 
anywhere into the continental United States--anywhere into the United 
States--they are going to have to be dealt with.
  Further, I wish to speak about the Inouye-Inhofe amendment. Last 
week, on Friday, I led a congressional delegation of four Members to 
view the facility at Guantanamo Bay. I would urge all of my colleagues 
to go and look at the facility. It is really an extraordinary piece of 
real estate which the Navy has used for many years, but it is also an 
extraordinary facility where we have invested several hundred million 
dollars into this mission. They built it up over a period of time. They 
have security that is being provided.
  The conclusion I came away with is that Guantanamo Bay is a highly 
specialized detention system for hundreds of terrorists, and 
replicating it would be enormously difficult, expensive, and 
unnecessary. I think my view represents the views of the colleagues of 
mine who went on the trip with me. I would urge people to go.
  Attorney General Holder has gone and said it is a well-run facility. 
I would urge President Obama to go and to look at the facility 
firsthand. What they have put in there is a very specialized facility 
to handle a very difficult situation.
  I know it has an image issue around much of the world. But an image 
issue is one thing. The practicality of dealing with the prisoners we 
have there, the detainees, is another. This is a specialized facility 
for handling them. I found they were able to handle dangerous 
detainees. I found that how they were being handled was quite fair.
  I think we should treat detainees fairly, humanely, according to the 
conventions, and they are being treated as such. But to transfer the 
detainees to the United States, we don't have a facility that could 
handle this. I question whether we could get a locale that wants to 
handle the detainees in the United States. It would also delay the 
justice of the military commissions operating. We have constructed a 
courtroom at Guantanamo, at the cost of several million dollars, which 
is completely secure, which is ready to start the military commission 
trials. It has a video streaming system in it that is completely 
secure, so that witnesses can be interviewed around the world into this 
courtroom setting. It is set up and ready to go.
  Now that the President has gone forward with some adjustments in the 
military commission process, it would delay the process further if you 
required this military commission facility to be constructed somewhere 
else in the United States or around the world. It would delay it in the 
setup and in the movement of these detainees to other places around the 
world.
  There is a second key point I want to make, which is that when you 
look at the situation at Guantanamo Bay and meet with the military 
personnel who are handling it--who I think are doing an excellent job--
they point out clearly that the members of al-Qaida who are there 
continue the battlefield in the prison. They talk about various things 
that are being done, a number of which--I will not mention some here--
are quite difficult to deal with among our military personnel. Our 
people look at the detainees as continuing the battlefield in the 
prison.
  Do we want to bring that into the prison system in the United 
States--a continuation of the battlefield into the prison system here? 
I don't think so. We are not set up to handle that. We need to consider 
that issue. The practical issue here is what we do with the detainees, 
which is a difficult problem for us. They are not in the criminal 
system in the United States, nor should they be. They are not enemy 
combatants, as far as representing a foreign country.
  We are going to have to figure out our way through it. I invite the 
administration to talk with Members in opposition to closing it. We 
shouldn't have an artificially specific date to close Guantanamo Bay, 
when we don't have an alternative set up. We don't have a system set up 
for how we are going to handle the detainees we are going to try. It 
makes better sense to not have this arbitrary timeline set and for us 
to work together on how we are going to work our way through this, and 
we should work together in a bipartisan fashion. I think we can do it. 
I support the Inouye-Inhofe amendment. It is appropriate and I think it 
represents where most U.S. citizens are.
  I close by congratulating and thanking our military personnel who 
work at Guantanamo Bay. I think they are doing an outstanding job under 
very difficult circumstances. It is a tough setting they are working 
in. It is a tough issue we are dealing with. I think they are doing a 
good job. I think we are going to have to detain these people for some 
time because too many are answering the battlefield again. They even 
continue it in incarceration. There is no reason to think they wouldn't 
continue it if they are allowed to get back onto the battlefield. I 
look forward to votes on my amendment and others.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will make a few remarks about what is 
perhaps the most contentious issue in this supplemental funding bill, 
and that is the issue we have been discussing throughout the day, and 
that is how to handle the United States detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  In the last few days, we have seen a flurry of amendments relating to 
this issue, some Republican and others from Democrats. Indeed, it seems 
that this issue has overshadowed the necessary focus on the ongoing 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way forward in each. I am afraid 
this bipartisan expression of concern and surge of legislative activity 
has a single cause: the decision by President Obama in one of his first 
acts after his inauguration to announce that he would close Guantanamo 
Bay 1 year after taking office, without presenting a plan for the 
disposition of the prisoners there. By announcing Guantanamo's closure 
without first conducting an in-depth review of the difficult issues 
posed by the Guantanamo detainees, we are left today arguing over the 
wisdom of shuttering the prison in the absence of any plan for what 
comes next.
  With the administration unable to propose and seek support for a 
comprehensive plan that encompasses all aspects of detainee policy, the 
Congress has been understandably reluctant to fund the closure of 
Guantanamo as the President requested in this supplemental. In fact, 
the Democratic chairmen of the Appropriations Committee in both the 
House and Senate have now stripped funding for closing Guantanamo from 
their respective supplemental funding bills. The Senate majority leader 
now says his party will not proceed in the absence of a comprehensive 
plan for Guantanamo's closure.
  It didn't have to be this way. During the past election, I too 
supported closing Guantanamo and pledged to do so. I continue to 
believe it is in the interest of the United States of America to close 
Guantanamo. But all policymakers must understand how essential it is to 
gain the trust of the American people on this sensitive national 
security issue. We cannot simply proceed without explaining to the 
American people what the plan is for how these prisoners will be 
handled in a way that is consistent with American values and protective 
of our national security. The American people deserve a detailed 
explanation of what will take place the day after Guantanamo is closed, 
and they must be certain their Government will execute its most 
fundamental duty, which is to keep America and its citizens safe.
  When the President announced his decision last Friday to restart 
military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees for war crimes, I 
applauded that decision. I have long believed that military commissions 
should be the chief venue for trying alleged war crimes violations 
committed by Guantanamo detainees. There is no doubt that the 
coordination, complexity, and massive scale of the 9/11 attacks that 
left over 3,000 innocent people dead constitute war crimes. There is 
also no

[[Page 12865]]

doubt that al-Qaida and its supporters were then, and continue to be 
today, committed to the destruction of our values and our way of life 
and our values in a fashion that bears no resemblance to the acts of 
common criminals.
  But while I applauded the President for restarting military 
commissions, I also pointed out that the President's overall 
decisionmaking on detainee policy has left more questions than it has 
provided answers. The numerous unresolved questions include: where the 
Guantanamo inmates will be held and tried; how we will handle those who 
cannot be tried but are too dangerous to release; how we will deal with 
the prisoners held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, some of whom were 
captured off the Afghan battlefield.
  I point out to my colleagues--and most of them know, and many 
Americans know--that we have already had the experience of around 10 
percent of those detainees who were released return to the battlefield. 
One of them is a high-ranking al-Qaida operative in southern 
Afghanistan and another in Pakistan. So this is a real threat.
  The lack of a comprehensive, well-thought-out plan led to a 
predictable political backlash to any movement on Guantanamo. Instead 
of unifying Americans behind a plan that keeps us safe and honors our 
values, the administration's course of action has unified the 
opposition to moving forward--and move forward we must. National 
security issues of this dimension require more than announcements and 
future promises. They require full detailed explanations of a proposed 
course in order to gain the support of the American people and their 
elected leadership in Congress. That is what will be required for 
success in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
  I know we will hear arguments during this debate that we should deny 
funding to close Guantanamo until we see a plan on what to do with the 
detainees, and we will also probably see amendments to deny detainees 
any sort of entry or asylum into the United States, whether it is for 
trial, post-trial incarceration, long-term preventive detention, or 
administrative detention pending deportation. We will do the best we 
can to deal with these issues, with the information from the 
administration that is available to us.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle on this issue. But most important, I again say to the President 
that I will work with him to forge a bipartisan solution to this very 
difficult problem that faces all of us. I urge again that we address 
all the detainee policy issues in a comprehensive fashion and lay out a 
plan that will keep us safe and honor our values. I strongly believe a 
comprehensive plan will lead to success, while a piecemeal approach, 
without addressing the legitimate concerns of the American public and 
Congress, will continue to divide us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I rise to thank the chairman of the 
full committee, along with the ranking member, for their wisdom with 
respect to the money allocated for Guantanamo Bay and the prison there. 
I want to make a few comments with respect to the prison at Guantanamo 
Bay.
  I have visited the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I led a CODEL--for those 
watching on television, that means a congressional delegation--of 
myself, members of the House, and, on this occasion, I took some 
members of the European Parliament. That is interesting, because when 
we came back and held a press conference to report what we had found, 
members of the European Parliament on the CODEL said, ``We cannot 
participate in this press conference.'' I said, ``Why?'' They said, 
``If we told the truth about what we saw at Guantanamo, we could not go 
home to Europe. The animosity toward Guantanamo in Europe is so strong 
that if we told the truth about how good things are down there, we 
would be attacked politically in Europe and we would lose our seat in 
the European Parliament.''
  I said: Well, I don't want you to lose your seats in the European 
Parliament. I won't ask you to participate. But we did hold a press 
conference, and one of those who did participate said: I wish the 
prisons in my district back home were as good as the prison in 
Guantanamo.
  Let me describe what we found in Guantanamo, not with respect to how 
well the prison was designed or how well the prison was administered 
but who the prisoners are, or, as they are appropriately called, the 
detainees.
  If you talk to the detainees, every one of them is a goat herder 
picked up by accident by the American troops when they were in 
Afghanistan or in Iraq or wherever it was. None of them had any 
connection with al-Qaida at all. This was all a huge mistake.
  I have been in the storeroom where they keep all of the items that 
were taken from these detainees when they were picked up. The question 
arises: What is a goat herder doing with hundreds of dollars of 
American money in $100 bills? What is a goat herder doing with 
sophisticated explosive equipment in his back sack? What is a goat 
herder doing with forged passports and other information and 
documentation? Maybe these people are not all goat herders. Maybe these 
people really are connected with al-Qaida, just based on what they 
found.
  I have watched an interrogation take place at Guantanamo by closed-
circuit television. The interrogation room is one which has stuffed 
furniture, pleasant surroundings. The detainee, to be sure, has irons 
on his legs so that he cannot leave his chair where he is sitting. They 
are not tying him directly to the chair, but he couldn't get up and 
walk out. But he is sitting on the chair, and the interrogator is 
sitting across the room in another chair, and they are having a 
pleasant conversation.
  You say: What kind of an interrogation is this? The interrogation is 
a conversation, and it goes on for an hour, an hour and a half. Then 
next week there is another conversation that goes on for an hour, an 
hour and a half, 2 hours, whatever it might be. Out of those 
conversations, little items begin to slip from the mouth of the 
detainee. The interrogator is able to take those items and piece them 
together, and pretty soon, after a few weeks or maybe a month or two, 
the interrogator knows that goat herder A has just identified goat 
herder B as an explosives expert high in the level of al-Qaida. Then, 
based on that information, when goat herder B is in for his 
interrogation, there is a conversation, and another thing starts to 
slip. Over a period of months, a pattern of information emerges that 
makes it possible to identify who is what and where in the whole al-
Qaida operation.
  Understand, the interrogation is not Soviet style to try to beat a 
confession out of anybody. It is to find out information that can be 
used in the war against terror. This information is painstakingly put 
together over a period of time. Pretty soon, the pattern emerges, and 
the interrogators begin to understand who these people are, what their 
relationship to each other may be, and what their role was out on the 
battlefield.
  One of the things I had not realized until I got there was that as a 
result of this process, the determination has been made with respect to 
hundreds of these detainees that they are no longer dangerous, they no 
longer have any information we need, they are no longer in a position 
to be dangerous to the United States. When that determination is made, 
they are released.
  Hundreds of the detainees at Guantanamo have been released. Many of 
them have showed up again on the battlefield. Indeed, some of them have 
been killed by American troops on the battlefield as they have been 
fighting back, which means the interrogators who decided they were no 
longer dangerous made a mistake. It turns out

[[Page 12866]]

they really were dangerous, they really were connected at a higher 
level than we were able to determine through the interrogator, and they 
had fooled the interrogator into believing they were innocent 
bystanders who somehow did not belong there, and they got released and 
found their way back to Afghanistan, back to the battlefield. Some of 
them whom we knew well enough from their time in Guantanamo identified 
on the battlefield were shot and killed by American forces in 
firefights where they were attacking Americans.
  One of the things they do at Guantanamo--``they'' being the 
detainees--is to make every effort to communicate with each other and 
create conspiracies within the prison. Conspiracies to do what? 
Conspiracies to create incidents that will create international outrage 
against the United States.
  Two weeks before we arrived there, there was one such incident. I had 
not seen it in the American newspapers. I was told that it was reported 
in the American newspapers but only in passing. When we got the details 
from the guards and the administrators of the prison describing the 
specifics of what had happened, I realized that the story in the 
American newspapers was very sketchy.
  Over a period of months, the detainees conspired together to create 
an incident in the area that was part of the exercise facility. They 
planned it very carefully. They worked together. They complied with all 
of the rules in the prison that would allow them greater freedom 
because as the commandant of the prison said to us: I don't have very 
many sticks; I only have carrots.
  To get people to cooperate, if they abide by the rules they lay down, 
we give them greater freedom, we give them greater opportunities. So 
these people would comply in every way until they could get to a 
circumstance where they could talk to each other, be on the exercise 
field, and hatch their plan.
  Finally, this is what they did. They put up some screens in the form 
of clothing or some kind of cover so that the guards, for a short 
period of time, could not see what they were doing in this room. In 
that period of time, they pulled down the fluorescent tubes from the 
light fixtures in the ceiling so that they could use them as weapons. 
At the same time, they covered the floor with a variety of liquids, 
their purpose was to make the floor as slippery as possible. Then when 
the guard came in to see what was going on because the screens had gone 
up, as he walked in, suddenly he was standing on liquids that were 
slippery so that he couldn't get his footing very well, and they were 
attacking him with the fluorescent tubes as weapons, trying to create a 
significant incident. Fortunately, he was able to keep his footing. He 
was able to pull out his weapon. He was able to gain control of the 
situation, and the rest of the guards were alerted fast enough to come 
in before it turned into serious injury. But the American guard came 
very close to serious injury.
  Their hope was, as nearly as the interrogators could figure out, to 
provoke the Americans into killing one of them. Their hope was to 
create a circumstance where there would be a death in Guantanamo that 
would create a worldwide outcry of outrage against the brutal Americans 
in this prison and thereby make their political point.
  There were many other examples which were given to us of attacks on 
the guards by the prisoners in circumstances, again, that are not 
appropriate to discuss in this setting but that are thoroughly 
disgusting and outrageous in terms of the violation of the person of 
the guards involved.
  On one occasion where it was particularly outrageous, it was a young 
woman who had joined the Navy and was in her first assignment doing her 
best to patrol up and down an aisle between the cells. In this case, 
the cells had screens on them through which items could be thrown. They 
were thrown at her and in her face.
  Their commanding officer said to her: Go take a shower and take the 
afternoon off, to recover from this horrendous kind of experience for 
her.
  She said: I will take the shower, I will get a clean uniform, but I 
will come back. I will not let them intimidate me to say I can no 
longer walk my patrol.
  That is the kind of valor and integrity we have from the Americans 
who are there policing these people.
  I could go on about other things we discovered. The primary health 
care problem the detainees have in Guantanamo is obesity. They are fed 
so well and they have no control on how much they eat; they can use 
whatever they want from the food as they come into the commissary. The 
doctors and the nurses who are there to take care of them say we have a 
problem of overweight with every one of them. They have never had this 
much food available to them in their lives.
  They are all looked after. Many of them came with significant health 
care problems off the battlefield, and it is the American medical corps 
that has made them well and whole.
  Why do I dwell on all of this about the nature of the prisoners? 
Because I am sympathetic with those Americans who say: We don't want 
these people in our prisons. And indeed we don't--not because of a 
``not in my backyard'' syndrome, but guards who are trained to deal 
with the kinds of prisoners who show up in American prisons now are not 
prepared to deal with people who are potential suicides to make a 
point, people who will deliberately provoke the guard in the hope that 
they will get killed or seriously injured in order to make an 
international incident. This is not your average automobile stealer. 
This is not even your average drug dealer. This is someone who has a 
political agenda and sees the prison in America as the stage on which 
that agenda can be acted out. To put that prisoner into an American 
prison where they are going to be rubbing shoulders with other convicts 
who have absolutely no idea what they are getting into and call upon 
guards to deal with them who have no idea what they are getting into is 
seriously not a good idea.
  Where do you keep people like this? You keep them in a facility that 
is designed to deal with them. You keep them with guards who are 
trained to deal with them. And you use the facility to get the 
information they can give you to be helpful in the war on terror. That 
is what the prison at Guantanamo was built to become, and that is what 
it is.
  If the President of the United States now decides that keeping 
Guantanamo open is a political embarrassment with other countries in 
the world and it becomes necessary for us in our diplomacy to close 
Guantanamo, I say that is his decision. The Constitution gives him the 
responsibility of foreign affairs, and I will respect that decision. 
But as a Member of the Congress, I don't want to fund that decision 
until I know what he has in mind as an alternative place to put them. 
The idea of breaking them up and scattering them around the United 
States and letting them go to ordinary prisons--be they Federal, State, 
or local--in the United States is to ignore who they are and ignore 
what they can do and ignore the challenge they represent to law 
enforcement and penitentiary personnel in America's existing prisons. 
So that is why I applaud the chairman in his decision to say we are 
going to put this off. We are going to delay the time when Guantanamo 
will be closed until we have a logical place to put them.
  Because right now, if you want to describe the logical place to put 
these prisoners at this time, in this particular struggle with al-Qaida 
and the rest of the terrorists, the logical place is where they are 
right now. If it means keeping Guantanamo prison for an extra year or 
an extra 2 years or whatever it takes to get an intelligent 
alternative, I say, let's do that. Because the intelligent alternative 
does not exist at the moment.
  I hear no plans being drawn to create it in the future. I think we 
owe it to those Americans who would otherwise have to deal with it if 
the U.S. Navy doesn't, to say we are not going to turn them over to you 
until you have a legitimate and well-thought-out plan as to the way to 
deal with it.
  It is for that reason, again, that I congratulate the chairman and 
the

[[Page 12867]]

committee on the decision to withhold this funding until such a plan 
has been made available to us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I, again, rise to express my concerns 
regarding the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. The 
closure of this Nation's only secure strategic interrogation center 
puts our Nation at risk.
  I am uncompelled by the Obama administration's legal and policy 
reasons to justify closing Guantanamo within the next 8 months. 
Currently, there is no suitable replacement for Guantanamo. This $200 
million facility is secure and is a state-of-the-art facility. 
Moreover, it is located away from population centers and staffed by 
trained military personnel. Guantanamo has no equal within the 
continental United States.
  On March 19, 2009, it was reported by the Wall Street Journal that 
Attorney General Eric Holder made reference to the idea that the 
Department of Justice would bring some of the detainees to this country 
and release them. The Attorney General's statement that he is open to a 
policy of outright release of terrorists brought to the United States 
is disturbing, coming as it does from the senior administration 
official charged with executing this plan. It also does not dispel my 
grave concerns about closing Guantanamo Bay.
  Indeed, the manner in which this closure has been orchestrated has 
provided few details and little assurance about how this facility will 
be closed within the next 8 months and what will be the superior 
alternative to Guantanamo.
  Of the approximately 240 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, 174 of 
them received or conducted training at al-Qaida camps and facilities in 
Afghanistan. There is direct evidence that 112 participated in armed 
hostilities against U.S. or coalition forces. Furthermore, 64 of these 
remaining detainees either worked for or had direct contact with Osama 
bin Laden, and 63 of the remaining detainees had traveled to Tora Bora.
  In 2001, the Tora Bora cave complex became the fallback position for 
the Taliban and was believed to be the hideout for Osama bin Laden. Not 
just anyone could gain access to these caves. We have gone through 
these particular features. There were 174 who received training in al-
Qaida camps in Afghanistan; 112 participated in armed hostility with 
the U.S. or coalition forces; 64 worked for or had contact with Osama 
bin Laden; 63 traveled to Tora Bora.
  The administration has stated that they will bring the Chinese 
Uighurs to the United States for the sole purpose of releasing them. 
All 17 Uighurs have demonstrable ties to the East Turkistan Islamic 
Movement, the ETIM, a designated terrorist organization since 2004. The 
ETIM made terrorist threats against the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and, 
regardless of previous terrorist activity, any member of this 
organization would be ineligible to enter the United States, pursuant 
to Federal immigration law, let alone be allowed to roam this country.
  One of the trainers for these Chinese nationals was Hassan Mahsun, an 
associate of Osama bin Laden. The Uighurs traveled to Afghanistan by 
using al-Qaida resources. They were also lodged in al-Qaida safe houses 
and terrorist training facilities. This alone is indicative that these 
terrorists were vetted and respected enough to be allowed access to al-
Qaida havens.
  Title 8, section 1182 of the United States Code defines inadmissible 
aliens. Under this law, any alien who has engaged in terrorist activity 
or is a representative of a terrorist organization is ineligible to 
enter the United States. The ``Guantanamo'' Uighurs have certainly met 
this definition, but to completely address this argument, I want to 
take this analysis one step further. The law also states that ``any 
alien who has received military-type training from or on behalf of any 
organization that, at the time the training was received, was a 
terrorist organization, is ineligible to enter the country.''
  That is what this says:

       In general any alien who has received military training as 
     identified in section 2339 D(c)(1) of title 18, from or on 
     behalf of any organization that, at the time training was 
     received, was a terrorist organization as defined in clause 
     VI.

  I also would like to point out that my esteemed colleague from the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, has brought this statute to the 
attention of the Attorney General. My colleague has asked for the 
reasoning behind the Justice Department's assertion that the Uighurs 
could be foisted upon unsuspecting American communities as Chinese 
citizens in need of asylum. The Justice Department's opinion that 
terrorists can be brought to this country for the purposes of 
nondetention is preposterous. It is another example of this 
administration's propensity to leap before it looks--to rush headlong 
into making policy without carefully analyzing what the unwanted 
byproducts or consequences of that policy will be. I am interested in 
hearing the Justice Department's legal reasoning for justifying this 
transfer.
  Three weeks ago, while in Germany, Attorney General Holder described 
the closure of Guantanamo as ``good for all nations.'' He argued that 
anger over the prison has become a ``powerful global recruiting tool 
for terrorists.'' With all due respect to the Attorney General, neither 
he nor anyone else in this administration has yet demonstrated a strong 
analytic understanding of what is motivating terrorist recruitment. 
Furthermore, terrorist organizations did not appear to face a shortage 
of recruits for violent jihad prior to the media frenzy on the 
Guantanamo facility. Jihadists are ideologically motivated. In fact, 
corroborated evidence obtained from interviews and interrogations of 
detainees at Guantanamo has revealed that 118 of the remaining 
detainees in custody were recruited or inspired by a terrorist network. 
Therefore, closing Guantanamo in the next 8 months is simply not going 
to be a ``silver bullet'' and solve the problem of recruitment to 
violent jihad.
  For this and other reasons, I am simply not willing to trade 
Guantanamo for the possibility of trying to appease and become more 
popular with our critics living in foreign countries. Popularity is an 
inappropriate and extremely mushy measure of policy soundness. Many of 
our foreign critics would like our nation to abandon its support for 
Israel. Of course we wouldn't. If our Nation's popularity abroad is our 
primary concern, wouldn't we have to consider that option? I know this 
Senator will never consider that, irrespective of what our foreign 
critics say or what the contemporary media or oversensitive diplomats 
suggest.
  If the administration follows its timeline, as I have said before, 
Guantanamo will be closed in 8 months. Any detainees left in custody at 
the end of that time will be transported to the United States. I think 
it bears repeating that this transport will be from a secure, state-of-
the-art facility--one that is already operational and fully staffed 
with trained military personnel. Relocation of these detainees to the 
United States would require agencies like the U.S. Marshal Service, FBI 
and the Bureau of Prisons--BOP--to divert assets and manpower from 
essential programs and facilities to secure these detainees.
  It is worth noting that the Bureau of Prisons does not have enough 
space available to house these detainees in high-security facilities. 
BOP officials have previously stated that they consider these prisoners 
a ``high security risk.'' As such, they would need to house them in a 
maximum-security facility. The BOP has 15 high-security facilities. 
These installations were originally built to hold 13,448 prisoners, yet 
they currently house more than 20,000 high-security inmates. So it 
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the BOP cannot receive 
these Guantanamo

[[Page 12868]]

detainees. The Bureau's high-security facilities are already woefully 
overcrowded by nearly 7,000 inmates.
  Look at the current population, the yellow bar graph. The blue one is 
the total rated capacity. We have enough people in these high maximum 
security prisons that they are overfilled now. Yet they want to put 
these high-risk terrorists--somewhere. They certainly can't be in these 
high-risk facilities.
  Moreover, it does not appear to be fiscally smart to shutter a 
functional $200 million facility that has no equal domestically. Why 
would the Federal Government transfer detainees from a secure military 
facility located on an island that is isolated from populous areas to a 
domestic military installation? Why should we make the Marshal Service 
or the Bureau of Prisons jump through hoops to recreate or replicate 
the proven effective model of a detention facility that Guantanamo has 
become.
  A few weeks ago President Obama asked his Cabinet to find ways to 
save $100 million from the Federal budget. However, the President's 
Defense Supplemental contained $80 million for the closure of 
Guantanamo. The administration had no plan on how to spend that $80 
million and had not identified a replacement that is superior to 
Guantanamo. Fortunately, the House of Representatives addressed this 
flawed plan or lack of a plan, and correctly stripped the $80 million 
out of the Defense Supplemental. Since 1903, we have been paying rent 
to Cuba for the use of Guantanamo Bay. This amount is less than $5,000 
a month. Despite this, the administration insists on closing Guantanamo 
and spending millions of taxpayer dollars without a defined plan. That 
is ludicrous.
  In February, a Department of Defense report determined that 
Guantanamo far exceeds any detention facility here in the United 
States. This report also found that the facility is in compliance with 
Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. I am sure I need not 
remind my colleagues, many of whom have visited Guantanamo as I have, 
that this facility has the capability to accommodate a trial, provide 
health care and securely house some of the most dangerous terrorists 
ever captured.
  Sadly, the epitaph of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility was 
written the day the executive orders to close it were signed. Despite 
not having a process to close Guantanamo, the administration is 
determined to do it anyway. Therefore, Guantanamo will be closed in 8 
months--not because its current conditions violate the Geneva 
Convention, but because of a slanderous campaign by the media to paint 
Guantanamo as a symbol of injustice. Unfortunately, some of my 
colleagues have drank the Kool-Aid and bought into this canard. Let me 
remind my colleagues that Common Article III of the Geneva Convention 
requires that prisoners of war not be held in civilian prisons and 
should not be tried in civilian courts.
  Guantanamo is still an asset to this country. I don't see how anyone 
who is honest about the matter can characterize it any other way, 
especially when there is not a sufficient replacement located 
domestically to meet the Justice Department's needs. It is my fervent 
hope that the President and the Attorney General will reconsider their 
ill-considered plan to close Guantanamo and recognize the obvious--that 
a $200 million dollar facility that is already operational and in 
compliance with international treaties should not be shuttered and 
closed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1137

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that the Senate return to the consideration 
of amendment No. 1137. This technical amendment has been cleared by 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1137) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, 
tomorrow, May 20, after any statements of the leaders, the Senate 
resume consideration of H.R. 2346 and Inouye amendment No. 1133; that 
there be 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders on that amendment or their designees, with the time allocated 
as follows: The first 30 minutes under the control of the Republican 
leader, the second 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader, 
and the final 60 minutes divided equally, with 10-minute limitations, 
with the final 5 minutes of time under the control of Senator Inouye; 
that upon the use of this time, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
Inouye amendment with no amendment in order to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2346, the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Charles E. Schumer, Mark 
           Begich, Mark L. Pryor, Richard Durbin, Patty Murray, 
           Tom Harkin, Edward E. Kaufman, Claire McCaskill, 
           Michael F. Bennet, Mark Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Carl 
           Levin, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum also be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________